THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/costaricapanamaaOOmoreiala 


Costa  Rica-Panama  Arbitration 


REPORT 


SUBMITTED  TO 


THE  REPRESENTATIVE  OF  COSTA  RICA 


BY 


LUIS  MATAMOROS 

CONSULTING  ENGINEER  OF  THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  COSTA  RICA 


WASHINGTON,  D.  C. 

PRBSS  OP  GIBSON   BROTHSRS,   INC. 

1913- 


B7M^ 


INDEX 

OP   THE 

CHAPTERS. 


I.  THE  REPORT  OF  THE  GEOLOGIST 5 

n.  THE  REPORT  OF  THE  COMMISSION 13 

(i)  The  Lower  Sixaola. 

(2)  The  Lower  Sixaoi^a  (continuation). 

(3)  Tracing   of  the  une  that   closes  the 

VaIvIvEy  of  the  Sixaola  upon  the  north. 

(4)  The  Upper  Teuri. 

HI.  SOME  EXPLANATIONS  AS  TO  THE  TRACING 
OF  THE  LINE  THAT  CLOSES  THE  VALLEY 
OF  THE  SIXAOLA  UPON  THE  NORTH  57 

IV.  ANSWERS  TO  QUESTIONS  PROPOSED  BY 
COSTA  RICA  AND  PANAMA  TO  THE  COM= 
MISSION  OF  ENGINEERS  IN  THE  ORDER 
IN  WHICH  THE  COMMISSION  SUBMITTED 
THEM  FOR  THE  EXAMINATION  OF  THE 
ASSISTANT-ENGINEERS    IN    THE    FIELD    64 

V.  THE  STARTING  POINT,  UPON  THE  MAPS 
OF  THE  COMMISSION,  OF  THE  SUPPOSED 
DIVIDE,  MARKED  WITH  TWO  BLACK, 
CONTINUOUS  AND  PARALLEL  LINES 84 

VI.  THE  BASES  OF  SOME  POINTS  DISCUSSED 

IN  THE  PRECEDING  CHAPTER 99 

VII.  THE  LONGITUDINAL  PROFILE  SUBMITTED 

BY  THE  COMMISSION 120 

VIIL   NEW  PROOFS 123 

IX.  THE  DIVIDE  BETWEEN  THE  WATER- 
SHEDS OF  THE  TWO  OCEANS 134 

3 


780930 


CHAPTER  I. 


THE  REPORT  OF  THE  GEOLOGIST. 

1.  If  the  Report  of  the  Commission  of  Engineers  be 
examined  with  some  care,  especially  in  its  declarative 
portion,  it  will  be  observed  that  it  is  based  upon  the 
opinions  of  the  Geologist.^ 

2.  Before  analyzing  this  document  it  is  indispensable 
to  determine  precisely  the  limits  of  the  territory  personally 
explored  and  traversed  by  the  Geologist,  for  the  purpose 
of  ascertaining  what  facts  must  be  admitted  as  authentic, 
as  being  data  gathered  upon  the  ground,  and  at  the  same 
time  excluding  every  item  of  information  or  fact  in  that 
report  lying  outside  the  boundaries  of  his  personal  inspec- 
tion, for  the  reason  that  it  was  not  obtained  directly  upon 
the  ground  but  by  reports,  comparisons  and  unverified 
hypotheses. 

3.  The  Geologist  has  exactly  fixed  those  boundaries 
which  we  are  now  about  to  consider. 

On  page  8  he  says:  "The  territory  personally  examined 
geologically  *  *  *  js  contained  between  north  lati- 
tude 9°  35'  and  9°  38'  and  west  longitude  82°  38'  and 
82°  60'." 

As  we  shall  see  further  on  (Chap.  IV;  Q.  XIV,  a),  these 
boundaries  exclude  at  once  the  territory  from  the  mouth 
of  the  Sixaola,  82°  34'  50"  west  of  Greenwich  to  a  half- 
mile  to  the  west  of  Punta  Mona,  meridian  82°  38'  west,  or 
a  distance  of  5,852  meters. 

^Report  of  Commission,  p.  43. 

5 


6 

On  the  other  hand,  he  says:  "  Unfortunately  the  writer 
did  not  have  time  to  thoroughly  examine  this  upper  valley 
except  to  make  a  hasty  visit  to  the  lower  end  of  it."* 

This  statement  confines  his  personal  inspection  strictly 
to  a  hasty  visit  to  the  extreme  lower  end  of  the  upper  valley 
of  the  Sixaola ;  and  on  page  45  he  indicates  the  separation 
of  the  two  valleys  into  an  upper  part  and  a  lower  part  and 
places  the  boundary  between  them  at  Piedra  Grande,  by 
saying  "*  *  *  that  the  division  between  these  two 
parts  is  in  the  vicinity  of  Piedra  Grande."^  If  the  map 
presented  by  him  is  consulted  it  will  be  found  that  Piedra 
Grande  is  situated  at  82°  52'  30"  west  of  Greenwich  and 
9°  36'  north  latitude;  from  which  it  may  be  inferred 
that  his  personal  inspection  did  not  reach  finally  to  the 
meridian  of  82°  60'  as  it  is  literally  stated,  but  only  as  far 
as  82°  52'  30"  west  of  Greenwich,  or,  that  is  to  say,  over  a 
territory  embraced  between  82°  38'  and  82°  52'  30". 

4.  The  Geologist  excludes  as  a  matter  of  fact  all  personal 
investigation  in  the  region  of  Punta  Mona,  and  within  the 
whole  of  the  territory  which  extends  from  Piedra  Grande 
to  the  meridian  of  83°  30';  that  is  to  say,  that  his  recon- 
naissance, which  should  have  included  the  territory  be- 
tween the  meridians  of  82°  34'  50"  and  83°  30',  or  a  dis- 
tance of  fifty-five  geographical  miles,  covered  only  the 
territory  between  the  meridians  of  82°  38'  and  82°  52'  30", 
or  fourteen  and  a  half  miles,  and  hardly  three  miles  in 
latitude. 

5.  The  accompanying  map,  Plate  No.  I,  shows  the  ter- 
ritory explored  by  the  Geologist  between  the  boundaries 
that  he  himself  fixed. 

*  Report  of  the  Geologist,  top  of  p.  46. 
^Report  of  the  Geologist,  sec.  4,  p.  45. 


6.  It  was  important  that  this  matter  be  settled  at  the 
outset  in  order  to  find  an  explanation  for  the  various 
anomalies  observable  in  the  report. 

7.  For  the  purposes  of  its  consideration  it  will  be  con- 
venient to  divide  that  paper  into  three  parts: 

The  first  is  occupied  mainly  with  historical  generalities 
of  geology. 

The  second  is  devoted  to  the  theory  which  has  recently 
been  prevalent  as  to  the  prehistoric  formation  of  such 
ground. 

The  third  is  the  practical  portion,  applied  to  the  descrip- 
tion of  the  territory. 

8.  The  first  two  parts  do  not  affect  the  question.  It 
may  even  be  conceded  that  the  hypothetical  submergence 
at  some  prehistoric  date  may  have  really  taken  place,  but 
that  does  not  prevent  the  present  situation  from  being  a 
different  one. 

9.  For  that  reason  everything  that  relates  to  the  first 
two  parts  is  excluded  from  the  discussion  in  this  paper  in 
order  to  take  up  the  third,  or  the  conclusions  and 
facts  stated  by  the  Geologist,  but  always  within  the  boun- 
daries he  himself  fixed  as  coming  under  his  personal  obser- 
vation. 

10.  A  simple  inspection  of  the  small  area  explored  by  the 
Geologist,  marked  byarectangle  in  the  accompanying  map, 
Plate  No.  I,  will  be  sufficient  to  show  that  it  is  not  possible 
nor  logical  to  accept  any  of  the  general  principles  that  he 
lays  down  for  the  whole  of  the  vast  region  that  is  to  be 
considered.  Geology  is  a  science  based  upon  observation 
and  not  upon  deduction,  and  it  is  impossible  to  lay  down 
rules  covering  a  given  region  when  only  a  small  portion 
of  it  has  been  studied. 


8 

11.  Hence  it  comes  that  the  opinions  of  the  Geologist 
in  respect  to  the  valleys  of  the  tributaries  of  the  Sixaola, 
or  as  to  any  other  point  outside  of  the  limits  fixed,  cannot 
be  taken  into  consideration. 

12.  In  this  same  lower  part  of  the  Sixaola,  the  Geologist, 
doubtless  without  looking  at  the  maps,  either  those  pre- 
pared by  the  Commission  or  the  one  submitted  by  himself 
and,  furthermore,  without  having  been  there,  emphatically 
states:^ 

"*  *  *  the  upbuilding  of  these  natural  levees, 
coupled  with  the  2.3  meters  rise  of  the  land,  both 
brought  about  in  late  Pleistocene  time,  certainly  some 
hundreds  and  possibly  some  thousands  of  years  ago, 
have  caused  some  of  the  former  branches  of  the 
Sixaola  River,  such  as  Gadokan  Creek,  to  approxi- 
mately parallel  the  main  stream  and  flow  out  into  the 
ocean  instead  oj  into  the  Sixaola  where  it  certainly 
formerly  emptied     *     *     *." 

and  on  the  same  page,  24,  farther  down  he  says: 

"In  prehistoric  times,  then,  practically  all  of  the 
creeks,  including  Gadokan  and  those  northeast  of  it 
which  now  flow  into  the  ocean,  were  tributaries  of  the 
Sixaola." 

13.  On  the  contrary,  the  maps  and  reports  declare  that 
the  sources  of  the  Gadokan  lie  very  far  to  the  westward 
of  the  Sixaola;  the  Chief  Engineer  of  Party  A,  Mr.  Weak- 
land,  says  (La  Palma,  May  19,  191 2): 

"We  have  established  the  fact  that  Gadokan  Creek 
has  no  connection  with  the  Sixaola  and  that  it  heads 
more  to  the  west  than  shown  on  any  map  we  have."^ 

^Appendix  No.  2,  p.  24. 
^Appendix  No.  3,  p.  2. 


9 

14-  The  Commission,  then,  at  the  same  time  accepted 
the  paralleUsm  of  the  Gadokan  and  the  Sixaola,  as  laid 
down  by  the  Geologist,  and  the  net  divergence  of  the  same, 
estabHshed  by  the  Engineer  of  Party  A,  who  visited  per- 
sonally and  drew  the  course  of  the  Gadokan. 

The  conclusions  of  the  Commission  reveal  the  fact  that 
it  was  influenced  by  the  opinion  of  the  Geologist,  who  had 
not  been  upon  the  ground,  and  disregarded  that  of  its  own 
Engineer  at  the  head  of  Party  A. 

15.  The  citation  of  these  contradictions  might  be  con- 
tinued at  great  length,  but  a  few  of  the  more  important 
will  be  sufficient. 

On  page  15,  section  D,  the  Geologist  says: 

"The  percentage  of  run-off  during  the  wet  season  is 
very  large,  because  the  rain  falls  much  more  rapidly 
than  it  can  be  absorbed  by  the  .ground,  hence  must 
run  off." 

And  ten  pages  further  on  (p.  25)  he  says: 

'Ivlany  of  the  swamp  areas  are  passable  in  the  dry 
season,  which  may  have  one  to  three  meters  of  water 
over  them  after  heavy  rains." 

16.  The  Geologist  neglected  to  consider  the  evapora- 
tion, which  is  very  great  in  that  region,  by  reason  of  the 
high  temperature  that  he  himself  noted  there,  ^  but  as  he 
also  makes  the  assertion  (p.  14)  that  the  maximum  rainfall 
in  one  year  (1910)  hardly  reached  149  inches,  or  say  3.75 
meters,  we  would  have  to  suppose  that  the  run-off,  perco- 
lation, etc.,  be  considered  as  null,  together  with  a  dam  three 

^Report  of  the  Geologist,  pp.  12  and  13. 


10 

meters  high,  keeping  the  waters  permanently  at  that 
height.  But  it  should  also  be  noted  that  the  149  inches 
mentioned  was  the  amount  of  rainfall  for  the  entire 
year  and  not  merely  one  heavy  rain,  as  the  Geologist 
intimates. 

17.  Summarizing  the  Report  of  the  Geologist,  it  should 
be  said  that  notwithstanding  the  anomalies  thus  far 
pointed  out,  he  did  state  various  actual  and  authentic 
facts  in  regard  to  that  region.  It  is  true  that  if  he  did 
state  these  facts,  he  did  it  with  a  view  of  applying  his 
theories  and  hypotheses  to  them  for  the  purpose  of  im- 
peaching or  denying  their  effect,  and  it  has  been  necessary 
to  divest  them  of  the  appearance  they  had,  for  recognition. 

18.  A  few  instances,  among  others  that  could  be  selected 
are  as  follows: 

First.  The  Geologist  lays  it  down,  for  example,  that 
Punta  Mona  is  found  to  be  isolated  from  the  rest  of  the 
main  land  by  Swamp  A  lying  between,  but  as  he  applies 
the  theory  of  "low  saddles,"  the  result  is  that  it  is  joined 
to  the  mainland. 

Second.  He  says  that  Gadokan  and  other  small  streams 
discharge  their  waters  directly  into  the  ocean,  but  he 
subjects  them  to  the  submergence  hypothesis  and  makes 
them  in  fact  tributaries  of  the  Sixaola. 

Third.  He  alleges  that  the  rocks  of  the  Caribbean 
Coast  are  formed  by  coral  growths,  but  insists  upon 
reiterating  the  theory  of  a  submergence,  converting  Punta 
Mona,  which  lies  upon  the  Caribbean  shores,  into  a 
homogeneous  and  integral  part  of  the  Main  Cordillera,  etc 


11 

19-  If  each  of  the  above  declarations  is  divested  of 
the  hypothesis  by  which  it  is  impeached,  then  each  one 
of  them  stands  out  as  true  and  authentic  by  itself;  thus: 

1.  It  is  a  fact  that  Punta  Mona  is  separated  from  the 
mainland  by  Swamp  A. 

2,  It  is  a  fact  that  Gadokan,  Middle  Creek,  Punta 
Mona  Creek,  Manzanillo  Creek,  Taiodi,  Codes  and  other 
small  streams  do  discharge  their  waters  directly  into  the 
ocean  and  take  their  rise  upon  a  basin  that  is  distinct 
from  that  of  the  Sixaola. 

3-  It  is  a  fact  that  the  rocks  forming  Punta  Moua  are 
those  usual  upon  the  Caribbean  Coast  (the  Antillita  of 
Gabb),  coral,  and  sedimentary  formations  that  have  no 
relation  to  the  basic  or  crystalline  rocks  of  the  Main 
Cordillera. 

20.  In  the  course  of  this  paper  each  one  of  the  points 
of  the  Report  of  the  Geologist  that  ought  to  be  dis- 
cussed will  be  examined.  But,  as  will  be  seen  at  the 
proper  place,  the  meteorological  data  submitted  by  the 
Geologist,  from  observations  continued  over  a  period  of 
six  years,  were  not  used  by  him  nor  by  the  Commission 
for  the  purpose  of  seeing  whether  his  assertions  were  or 
were  not  well  founded.  If  such  data  had  been  considered, 
the  hypotheses  of  the  Commission  would  have  in  great 
part  broken  down,  giving  way  to  the  real  facts,  proved 
by  these  very  data. 

21.  The  sole  purpose  of  the  examination  that  is  now 
taken  up,  is  to  bring  out  the  truth,  using  solely  and 
exclusively  the  data  and  facts  furnished  by  the  reports 
under  discussion. 

22.  It  would  have  been  possible  to  have  had  recourse 
besides  to  other  sources  and  to  other  means  in  order  to 


12 

establish  the  truth,  but  it  was  not  necessary,  and  circum- 
stances demanded  a  strict  restriction  to  the  data  men- 
tioned as  being  all  that  now  may  be  considered  to  have  a 
full  legal  status. 

23.  Thus  stated,  the  foregoing  chapter  is  the  preamble 
to  the  examination  that  follows. 


CHAPTER  II. 


THE  REPORT  OF  THE  COMMISSION. 

(i)  The  Lower  Sixaola. 

1.  This  document  contains  65  pages,  of  which  35  are 
devoted  to  administrative  matters  of  the  Commission  and 
the  remainder  contain  a  description  of  the  investigations 
made.  The  maps  submitted  are  more  expHcit  than  the 
descriptions,  but  taking  the  maps  and  the  report  together 
the  subject  is  so  presented  that  by  reference  thereto  it 
is  very  easy  to  answer  the  questions  asked  by  the  two 
contracting  countries. 

2.  The  matters  included  by  the  Commission  in  the 
appendices  to  the  General  Report,  being  the  special 
reports  of  the  heads  of  the  technical  sections  in  the  locali- 
ties examined,  and  which  it  embodied  and  embraced  by 
its  signature,  are  in  the  highest  degree  instructive,  since 
the  facts  observed  personally  and  individually  are  thus 
established  and  cannot  be  controverted. 

3.  It  does  not  seem  as  if  the  Commission  gave  to  these 
reports  the  importance  which  they  really  have,  inasmuch  as 
the  conclusions  reached  by  it  are  not  based  upon  them.  It 
is  observed  that  in  some  cases  the  Commission,  in  com- 
municating them,  suppressed  some  phrases  or  ideas,  but 
fortunately  there  exist  and  are  to  be  found  in  the  com- 
municated documents,  texts  of  the  greatest  value  for 
clearing  up  and  solving  the  problems  submitted,  the 
sole  object  of  the  work  of  the  Commission. 

4.  The  detailed  statement  of  verified  facts,  made  by 
the  chief  of  Party  A,  in  charge  of  the  surveys  and  topog- 
raphy  of  the    region    embraced   between    Guabito    and 

13 


14 

Manzanillo,  which  app>ears  in  Appendix  No.  3,  is  especially 
important  in  this  matter;  in  the  first  place,  because  the 
Commission  embodied  and  transmitted  it;  and  second, 
because  they  are  facts  observed  and  deduced  by  the 
writer  in  situ,  and  communicated  by  him  to  the  Com- 
mission, not  as  the  final  result  of  his  work  in  that  region, 
not  as  a  conclusion,  but  as  evident  and  actually  observed 
facts,  discussed  and  verified  while  engaged  in  the  course 
of  his  investigations  and  not  conceived  upon  the  termina- 
tion thereof. 

5.  The  Commission  while  sitting,  not  in  its  headquarters 
at  Sdnchez,  nor  at  Punta  Mona,  nor  even  at  San  Jose, 
where  it  had  its  central  office,  but  at  Evanston,  and 
doubtless  when  it  had  finished  in  the  latter  place  the 
drawing  of  the  maps,  located  thereon  a  line  that  it  felt 
authorized  to  call:  "Line  of  a  hypothetical  divide  arbi- 
trarily drawn."     That  line  does  not  exist. 

6.  According  to  the  regulations  for  its  internal  opera- 
tion, prepared  by  the  Commission  and  approved  at  its 
Session,  No.  17,  of  January  19,  1912,^  the  various  chiefs 
of  parties  were  required  to  draw  out  in  the  form  and 
manner  provided  all  the  field  notes  taken  during  the 
previous  three  days  in  the  course  of  their  surveys.''  That 
provision,  as  may  be  seen  by  the  special  reports  of  the 
four  different  chiefs  of  parties,  was  always  complied  with 
by  them,  and,  referring  to  only  one  instance,  among  the 
many  that  could  be  cited,  it  appears  that  the  chief  of 
Party  A  reported^  that  he  had  personally  verified  the 
fact  that  no  connection  whatever  existed  between  the 

'Appendix  No.  i,  p.  102. 

'^Rule  18  of  General  Instructions:  Appendix  No.  i,  p.  no. 

^Appendix  No.  3  to  the  General  Report. 


15 

course  of  Gadokan  Creek,  throughout  its  entire  length, 
and  that  of  the  River  Sixaola. 

7.  It  Hkewise  appears  that  this  same  section  chief 
arrived  some  days  later  at  Punta  Mona,  but  there  is 
nothing  to  be  found  in  his  report  showing  that  he  met 
with  any  connection  between  that  point  and  the  interior 
of  the  region.  If  he  had  found  any  he  would  have  reported 
it,  as  he  did  in  the  case  of  the  low  ridge  of  Gadokan, 
between  this  creek  and  the  river;  but  on  the  contrary 
what  he  did  report  was,  as  shown  by  the  maps  and  docu- 
ments, marshy  and  low-lying  lands,  and  the  great  swamp 
between  Middle  Creek  and  Manzanillo  which  extends 
over  the  whole  south  of  Punta  Mona. 

8.  This  is  the  reason  why  it  is  mentioned  here  that  it 
was  at  Evanston,  and  not  at  the  places  on  the  ground 
where  the  work  was  done,  that  the  line  traced  was  called 
the  "Line  of  a  hypothetical  divide  arbitrarily  drawn." 

9.  The  very  name  given  to  it  by  the  Commission 
definitely  excludes  it  from  all  argument,  and  if  it  were 
not  that  its  creation  might  be  detrimental  to  the  interests 
of  Costa  Rica,  the  designation  thus  applied  to  it  would 
be  enough  to  cause  it  to  be  disregarded.  We  feel,  there- 
fore, compelled  to  discuss  the  basis  of  this  line  assumed 
by  the  Commission,  which  was  also  the  supposed  frontier 
that  the  French  Arbitrator  conceived. 

10.  In  calling  it  "arbitrary,"  and  "hypothetical,"  the 
Commission  confirmed  the  fact  that  it  was  their  imaginary 
creation,  just  as  the  spur  that  started  out  from  Punta 
Mona  was  also  an  arbitrary  and  hypothetical  creation. 

11.  If  the  supposition  advanced  in  the  French  Arbitral 
Award  in  this  respect  had  never  existed,  there  would  have 
been  no  room  for  the  present  discussions,  and  that  arbi- 
trary line  would  never  have  been  imagined,  at  least  in 


16 

the  place  where  it  is  now  located.  Such  a  supposition 
may  to  a  certain  extent  have  been  justified  in  the  mind 
of  the  President  of  France  when  he  drew  up  the  Award 
of  1900,  on  account  of  the  little  or  almost  entire  lack  of 
knowledge  then  had  of  that  Httoral,  but  now,  after  the 
careful  investigation  and  maps  prepared  by  the  Com- 
mission appointed  by  the  Honorable  Arbitrator  and  the 
contending  countries,  there  is  no  ground  for  such  a  sup- 
position, it  not  being,  as  the  Commission  asserts,  "hypo- 
thetical" or  "arbitrary,"  but  simply  replacing  the  line  that 
the  President  of  France  thought  existed.  As  to  this,  the 
General  Report,  the  maps  and  the  details  submitted  by 
the  Commission,  could  not  be  more  eloquent  or  decisive, 
for  they  clearly  and  definitively  show  that  the  line  supposed 
by  the  Arbitral  Award  to  exist  was  a  ' '  hypothetical  and 
arbitrary  line." 

12.  The  best  explanation  regarding  this  and  covering 
this  point  was  furnished  by  the  commissioner  Mr.  Hodgdon, 
in  his  special  report,  where  he  speaks  of  establishing  the 
fact  that  the  little  streams  of  Gadokan,  Middle  Creek, 
Manzanillo  and  others,  discharge  their  waters  "directly 
into  the  Ocean,"  and  without  any  connection  with  the 
Sixaola  or  with  its  valley.* 

Having  set  forth  this  preamble,  let  the  facts  now  be 
examined. 

13.  Plan  No.  2,  Sheet  No.  2:  "A  map  of  the  eastern 
portion  of  the  region  covered  by  surveys  in  191 2,"  upon 
a  scale  of  i :  10,000,  definitely  marks  a  line  separating 
throughout  its  entire  extension  the  basins  of  the  Sixaola 
and  of  the  Gadokan.  This  line  begins  upon  the  map 
exactly  on  the  meridian  of  82°  40'  and  at  9°  35'  20"  north 
latitude,  and  it  ends  upon  the  Atlantic  Coast  to  the  west 


'Supplemental  Report  of  Mr.  Hodgdon,  p.  5. 


17 

of  the  outlet  of  the  Sixaola  at  82°  34'  39"  west  of 
Greenwich,  and  9°  35'  north  latitude.  This  line,  from  its 
starting  point  upon  this  map,  follows  a  ridge,  the  contours 
of  which  indicate  an  elevation  of  about  fifty  meters,  to 
the  parallel  of  9°  34',  at  longitude  82°  39'  20"  west;  where 
no  contours  nor  details  of  elevation  appear  upon  the 
plan,  but  the  course  of  the  Gadokan  is  indicated  and 
the  ridge  continues  until  it  terminates  at  the  coast. 

14.  Sheet  No.  i  of  the  same  map  shows  the  continua- 
tion of  the  ridge  indicated  upon  Sheet  No.  2,  and  upon 
the  same  scale  i :  10,000,  from  a  point  designated  82°  40'^ 
west,  and  9°  35'  20"  north  latitude,  in  a  northerly  course 
and  almost  upon  the  meridian  82°  40'  west  to.  the  parallel 
9°  35'  25"  north,  where  the  ridge  takes  a  direction  toward 
the  northwest.  Upon  this  course  the  ridge  runs  until 
it  reaches  the  parallel  of  9°  36',  at  a  point  the  longitude 
of  which  is  82°  40'  45"  west,  and  the  elevation  of  which 
is  marked  upon  the  map  at  a  height  of  100  meters.  From 
this  point  the  direction  of  the  ridge  continues  to  the 
northwest  at  elevations  between  50  and  100  meters; 
but  another  divide  also  appears  starting  out  from  that 
same  point,  taking  a  course  nearly  north,  over  hilltops, 
the  elevation  of  which  is  not  greater  than  50  meters,  and 
with  depressions  as  low  as  about  10  meters  above  sea 
level,  as  may  be  seen  by  referring  to  the  point  where 
this  new  divide  crosses  the  intersection  of  longitude 
82°  49'  39"  west,  with  the  parallel  of  9°  36'  30"  north 
latitude,^  and  which  is  distant  one  kilometer  from  the 

^The  writer  of  this  report  takes  this  method  in  all  cases  to 
indicate  the  point  to  which  allusion  is  made  and  thus  avoids 
making  any  sign,  mark  or  annotation  that  might  in  any  way 
disfigure  the  original  map  of  the  Commission,  which  is  thus  left 
intact. 


18 

starting  point  taken.  From  this  depression  the  line 
rises  again  to  the  extremity  of  the  ridge,  the  next  level 
curve  being  150  meters,  and  it  reaches  a  height  of  193 
meters  at  Station  A-1239.  This  culminating  point  is 
only  distant  830  meters  from  another  situated  to  the 
northwest,  the  elevation  of  which  is  169  meters,  marked 
upon  the  map  as  Station  A-1261,  and  distant  from  the 
coast,  in  a  straight  line  toward  the  sea  in  a  northerly 
direction,  only  1,760  meters;  but  this  point  upon  the 
coast,  as  may  be  seen  by  a  reference  to  the  map,  lies 
6,000  meters  to  the  west  from  Punta  Mona;  that  is  to 
say,  still  further  west  than  Manzanillo. 

15.  This  other  divide  which  we  left  at  Station  A-1239, 
and  which  began  at  the  point  before  cited,  82°  40'  45" 
and  9°  36'  north  latitude,  is  indicated  upon  the  maps  by 
a  double  continuous  black  line,  and  the  Commission 
designate  it:  "Divide  which  is  the  north  limit  of  the  area 
which  drains  into  the  Atlantic  further  south  than  Punta 
Mona,"  in  order  to  expressly  and  deliberately  distinguish 
it  from  the  divide  that  is  marked  by  a  single  continuous 
black  line,  and  which  is  entitled:  "Divide  which  is  the 
north  limit  of  the  drainage  area  of  the  Sixaola  River;" 
and  to  differentiate  it  yet  more  clearly  and  precisely 
from  the  divide  marked  with  a  double  line  of  black  dashes, 
and  which  is  called:  "Line  of  a  hypothetical  divide  arbi- 
trarily drawn  across  Swamp  A." 

16.  This  other  divide,  we  repeat,  instead  of  continuing 
in  the  direction  which  has  been  described  and  which  to 
a  certain  degree  seems  the  most  logical,  inasmuch  as 
it  runs  along  higher  elevations,  and  is  consequently  better 
visible  and  more  certain,  to  the  point  already  mentioned 
at  the  height  of  169  meters,  at  Station  A-1261,  which 
is  distant   from  the  coast  only   1,760  meters,   although 


19 

the  Commission  has  indicated  it  as  a  "divide"  differing 
from  the  one  that  bounds  upon  the  north  the  Valley  of 
the  Sixaola,  is  continued  by  the  Commission,  not  forward 
but  rather  backward  and  carr}dng  it  to  the  east,  some 
distance  still  further  to  the  south,  until  it  reaches,  after 
running  a  distance  of  2,500  meters,  a  point  yet  lower  than 
the  one  just  indicated  (169  meters),  since  it  only  has  a 
height  of  90  meters  and  is  situated  at  82°  39'  west  longi- 
tude and  9°  36'  40"  north  latitude,  or  more  exactly  at 
82°  38'  57"  west  longitude  and  9°  36'  43"  north  latitude, 
whilst  the  point  A-1261  at  the  height  of  169  meters, 
distant  from  A- 1239  only  830  meters,  is  situated  at 
82°  40'  34"  west  longitude  and  9°  37'  26"  north  latitude. 

17.  From  the  point  having  an  elevation  of  90  meters, 
the  line  descends,  running  toward  the  north,  to  the  parallel 
of  9°  37',  at  longitude  82°  38'  54"  west,  where  it  is  on  the 
edge  of  the  marsh ;  thence  in  a  northeast  direction  it  trav- 
erses the  entire  marsh  to  the  parallel  of  9°  38'  at  longitude 
82°  38'  06" ,  where  a  little  hill  rises  that  ends  in  Punta 
Mona,  and  there  also  the  divide  that  is  being  traced 
terminates. 

18.  The  separation  of  this  divide,  which,  according  to 
the  maps,  is  hypothetical  and  arbitrary,  not  only  across 
Swamp  A,  but  also  after  it  leaves  Station  A- 1239,  is  very 
logical,  and  the  comparison  that  is  made  between  the 
hypothetical  tracing  marked  upon  the  maps  and  the 
more  accurate  one  shown  by  these  very  same  maps,  along 
greater  elevations  and  nearer  to  the  coast,  was  simply 
with  the  purpose  of  confirming  the  appellation  given  to 
that  divide,  as  a  "hypothetical  and  arbitrary  line." 

19.  So  that,  among  all  the  numcKous  facts  and  data 
furnished  by  the  report  of  the  Commission  of  Engineers  in 


20 

justification  of  the  rights  claimed  by  Costa  Rica,  there  is 
none  better,  clearer  or  more  convincing  than  the  one  shown 
by  the  maps  at  the  precise  point  being  analysed  in  this 
report. 

20.  In  fact,  plan  No.  2,  sheet  No.  2,  ends  toward  the 
north  at  the  point  we  have  noted  as  the  "divide,"  at  the 
intersection  of  82°  40'  west  longitude  and  9°  35'  20"  north 
latitude.  From  this  point  onward  map  No.  2,  sheet  No.  i, 
shows  the  continuation  of  said  actual  divide  from  the  basin 
of  the  Sixaola  upon  the  north.  This  divide  runs  thence 
upon  the  same  meridian  of  82°  40'  to  the  parallel  of  9°  35' 
25",  where  the  divide  bends  toward  the  northwest  and  on 
this  course  is  found  the  point  at  the  intersection  of  82° 
40'  46"  and  9°  36',  where  the  other  divide  starts  that 
is  distinguished  by  the  Commission  as  the  ridge  that 
bounds  upon  the  north  the  drainage  area  that  is  "further 
south  than  Punta  Mona,"  and  which,  as  has  been  seen, 
is  hypothetical  and  arbitrary.  The  result  is,  therefore, 
that  looking  at  the  maps,  there  are  to  be  seen  at  the  same 
time  aud  to  a  certain  extent  parallel,  two  divides;  the  first 
one  close  to  the  bed  of  the  Sixaola,  being  the  real  and  actual 
one  that  limits  the  basin  of  this  river  upon  the  north; 
whilst  the  second  one,  beginning  at  the  point  mentioned, 
proceeds  by  a  very  long  and  winding  course,  hypothetical 
and  arbitrary,  toward  Punta  Mona.  That  is  to  say,  there 
are  two  divides  of  the  Sixaola  Valley  upon  the  north,  on  the 
same  side  of  that  stream ;  one  of  them  cutting  the  meridian 
of  82°  40'  at  the  parallel  of  9°  35'  24",  and  the  other  cutting 
the  same  meridian  of  82°  40'  at  the  parallel  of  9°  37'  04", 
the  distance  between  them  being  3,000  meters. 

21.  This  undeniable  fact,  unanimously  stated  and  sub- 
scribed to  by  the  entire  Commission  of  Engineers,  brings 
into  clearer  relief  than  others  that  might  be  cited  the  fact 


21 

that,  even  supposing  and  conceding  that  the  hypothetical 
divide  of  the  Commission  did  exist,  there  exists  at  the 
same  time  another  real  divide,  which,  closer  to  the  course 
of  the  Sixaola,  closes  the  basin  of  this  river  before  the 
former  one ;  but  this  real  divide  does  not  enjoy  the  privilege 
of  terminating  at  nor  does  it  run  to  Punta  Mona,  for  it 
ends  just  to  the  west  of  the  outlet  of  the  Sixaola  into  the 
ocean. 

22.  The  Commissioner,  Mr.  Hodgdon,  in  his  supple- 
mental report,  had  the  honor  of  corroborating  this  funda- 
mental fact,  while  establishing  those  that  were  derived 
therefrom;  that  is,  that  various  creeks,  including  the 
Gadokan  and  others  farther  to  the  west  of  Manzanillo, 
empty  their  waters  directly  into  the  ocean,  without  any 
connection  with  the  Sixaola^ 

23.  The  fact  could  not  be  otherwise,  for  it  is  shown  by 
the  documents  presented  by  the  Commission,  the  report 
or  reports  of  the  Engineer  of  Section  A,  that  he  personally 
examined  this  portion  of  the  territory,  and  he  says,  among 
other  things:'  "We  have  established  the  fact  that  the 
Gadokan  Creek  has  no  connection  with  the  Sixaola  and 
that  it  heads  more  to  the  west  than  shown  on  any  map 
we  have;"  and  he  reiterates  it  when  he  says:^  "I  walked 
over  the  ground  between  the  Creek  Gadokan  and  the 
Sixaola  and  satisfied  myself  that  there  is  no  connection 
between  them." 

24.  Evidence  of  all  these  statements  will  be  found 
recorded  upon  the  maps,  where  the  divide  shown  by  a 
continuous  line  is  extended  until  it  ends  at  the  coast  to 
the  west  of  the  mouth  of  the  Sixaola. 

^Report  of  Mr.  Hodgdon,  p.  5. 
^Appendix  No.  3,  p.  2. 
^Appendix  No.  3,  p.  3. 


22 

25-  There  exists  another  divide,  also,  equal  to  the 
foregoing,  between  Gadokan  and  Middle  Creek,  which 
the  maps  do  not  indicate,  but  which  is  known  to  all  those 
who  travel  on  foot  or  upon  horseback  between  Punta 
Mona  and  Guabito. 

26.  Based  upon  new  mathematical  data  furnished  by 
the  investigations  of  the  Commission,  other  conclusions 
may  be  deduced  no  less  important.  One  is  that  the 
delta  of  the  Sixaola,  which  up  to  the  present  time  has 
been  understood  to  extend  to  near  the  mouth  of  Gadokan 
Creek,  is  confined  to  its  own  actual  mouth  and  very  close 
to  which  the  divide,  indicated  upon  the  maps  by  a  broken 
line,  terminates. 

27.  There  is  no  doubt  that  these  points,  inasmuch  as 
they  are  easily  accessible,  were  recognized  at  the  outset 
of  the  work  of  the  Commission,  and  if  it  were  not  that  it 
is  presumed  the  Commission  prudently  thought  it  well 
to  gather  the  fullest  data  possible  in  order  to  facilitate 
the  solution  of  the  problem  it  might  be  alleged  that  the 
Commission  had  exceeded  the  powers  committed  to  it 
by  the  Honorable  Chief  Justice,  the  Arbitrator  in  this 
litigation,  who,  in  accordance  with  the  Treaty,  limited 
the  investigations  of  the  Commission  to  the  "Hne  that 
closes  on  the  north  the  Valley  of  the  Sixaola,"  and  not 
the  basin  of  the  Sixaola. 

28.  The  Commission,  having  recognized  the  fact  settled 
by  Mr.  Hodgdon\  that  the  little  streams  which  run, 
from  the  Gadokan,  inclusive,  toward  the  west,  are  inde- 
pendent of  the  Sixaola  and  discharge  their  waters  directly 
into  the  ocean,  should  have  refrained  from  taking  the  whole 
of  that  region  into  consideration,  and  if  deemed  to  have 

^Report,  p.  5. 


23 

a  place  on  the  maps,  the  region  should  have  been  included 
therein  merely  by  way  of  illustration  and  nothing  more. 

29.  Still,  upon  the  maps,  and  in  the  descriptions  more 
especially,  a  tendency  may  be  noted  to  assimilate  the 
basin  upon  which  Punta  Mona  is  found,  a  watershed 
that  drains  directly  into  the  ocean,  to  the  basin  of  the 
Sixaola.  To  arrive  at  this  the  maps  say:  "Divide  which 
is  the  north  limit  of  the  drainage  area  of  the  Sixaola 
River  when  that  river  and  Gadokan  Creek  are  at  low 
stages,  but  which  may  be  submerged  in  portions  and 
hence  is  not  a  divide  when  either  the  Sixaola  River 
or  Gadokan  Creek  is  at  a  high  stage  and  their  waters 
mingle." 

30.  Before  going  thoroughly  into  this  classification  sui 
generis,  let  us  state  parenthetically  in  the  fewest  possible 
words  two  ideas,  which  are  essentially  identical  and  yet 
are  interpreted  by  the  Commission  in  a  diametrically 
opposite  sense. 

31.  The  Commission,  relying  upon  the  opinion  of  the 
Geologist,  accepted  the  conclusion  that  the  hypothetical 
divide  that  appears  upon  the  maps,  proceeding  across 
Swamp  A,  toward  Punta  Mona,  ought  to  he  consider ed^ 
although  a  great  part  of  it  is  constantly  submerged  below 
the  level  of  the  waters  of  the  swamp.  The  strongest 
reason  adduced  was  that  in  some  prehistoric  period  that 
territory  was  buried  at  a  depth  of  120  meters,^  and,  con- 
sequently, not  Punta  Mona  alone,  but  also  the  islet  lying 
in  front  of  it,  formed  the  termination  of  a  high  and  visible 
divide ;  and  the  Commission,  contradicting  the  very  lan- 
guage of  the  reports  made  by  its  Engineer  of  Party  A, 
showing  that  no  connection  exists  between  the  Gadokan 
and  the  Sixaola,  says  that  the  divide  between  these  two 
water-courses  must  not  he  considered,  when  both  streams 

^Report  of  the  Geologist  p.  21. 


24 

flood  the  land  near  their  discharge  outlets ;  that  is  to  say, 
a  divide  must  not  be  considered  when  it  is  submerged, 
although  not  constantly,  like  the  above,  but  by  the  simple 
rising  of  the  waters. 

32.  So  that  what  must  be  accepted  as  an  accomplished 
fact,  because  it  was  so  in  some  prehistoric  epoch,  must 
not  be  accepted  as  an  accomplished  fact,  because  it  is  so 
during  the  present  epoch. 

33.  The  two  facts  are  identical  and  yet  the  conclusions 
put  forth  by  the  Commission  are  diametrically  opposed : 
in  the  first  case  it  accepts,  and  in  the  second  case,  pre- 
cisely the  same,  it  denies.  Going  to  the  bottom  of  the 
matter  and  stating  it  succinctly :  in  one  case  a  fact  is  sup- 
ported that  is  injurious  to  Costa  Rica,  and  in  the  other 
and  like  case  it  is  rejected  when  it  favors  Costa  Rica. 

34.  This  disposes  of  the  parenthetical  matter  and,  re- 
turning again  to  the  question,  it  is  very  noticeable  that 
there  is,  both  upon  the  maps  and  in  the  descriptions,  a 
tendency  to  assimilate  what  we  know  under  the  name  of 
*'  Manzanillo  Basin  "  with  the  "  Sixaola  Basin."  The  argu- 
ment adduced  for  this  is  condensed  by  the  Commissioner, 
Mr.  Hodgdon,  in  his  supplementary  report,  by  saying  that 
the  Gadokan,  Middle  Creek  and  all  the  other  little  streams 
that  discharge  during  flood  periods  into  the  ocean,  ought 
to  be  considered  as  tributaries  of  the  Sixaola,  because  by 
the  rains  the  course  of  the  Sixaola  and  the  courses  of  those 
creeks  become  mingled. 

35.  The  argument  is  not  a  consistent  one  and  it  is  one 
that  could  be  used  to  assert  that  the  Mississippi  is  a  tribu- 
tary of  the  Rio  Grande  del  Norte,  because  both  empty 
into  the  Gulf  of  Mexico.  And  the  most  remarkable  thing 
is  that  if  we  were  very  careful  as  to  the  significance  of  the 
word  "  tributary  "  it  would  be  found  that  in  the  case  before 


25 

us,  the  flow  of  the  Gadokan  being  extremely  small  in 
comparison  to  that  of  the  Sixaola,  in  cases  of  floods  it 
would  not  be  the  Gadokan  that  would  pour  into  the 
Sixaola,  but  a  part  of  the  waters  from  the  Sixaola  would 
be  found  to  go  to  swell  those  of  the  Gadokan,  so  that  the 
former  would  then  be  a  tributary  of  the  latter,  and  not 
the  latter  a  tributary  of  the  former. 

36.  So,  while  the  Commission  as  a  body,  termed  simply 
''low  saddles"  the  submerged  part  that  it  supposed  ran 
and  terminated  at  Punta  Mona,  in  accord  with  the 
Geologist  who  asserted  that  "In  geological  studies  it 
is  a  very  common  thing  to  find  low  saddles  in  divides,"' 
why  was  not  this  same  dictum  applied  to  the  divide  that 
exists  between  Gadokan  and  the  Sixaola?  And  let  it  be 
especially  noted  that  this  "low  saddle"  is  always  submerged, 
while  that  between  the  Gadokan  and  the  Sixaola  is  visible 
throughout  the  dry  season  and  is  only  submerged  during 
high  floods  in  the  rivers,  as  the  Commission  asserts  in  its 
hypothesis, 

37.  But  the  very  climax  of  this  whole  matter  is  that  the 
divide  which  is  sought  to  be  imposed,  to  end  at  Punta  Mona, 
and  which  is  supported  and  maintained  by  the  very  same 
arguments  by  which  the  other  divide  is  rejected,  is  not  the 
divide  that  closes  upon  the  north  the  valley  of  the  Sixaola. 

38.  If,  as  this  Commission  declares,  the  divide  that  runs 
hypothetically  toward  Punta  Mona  is  simply  the  line  that 
limits  the  drainage  area  toward  the  Atlantic,^  farther 
south  than  Punta  Mona,  what  is  to  be  done  with 
this  divide  thus  categorically  defined,  existent  or  not, 
which  not  corresponding,  either  with  the  description  or 
the  expUcit  conditions  set  forth  by  the  French  Award, 

'Report  of  the  Geologist,  p.  19. 
^See  the  legend  upon  the  maps. 


26 

ought  not  to  be  given  any  consideration  whatever?  There 
is  no  object  in  further  discussion  or  denial  of  that  point 
after  the  Commission  has  officially  declared  that  this  is 
not  the  divide  that  separates  upon  the  north  the  valley  of 
the  Sixaola. 

39.  If  it  exists,  it  is  not  the  one  meant  by  the  French 
Award,  and  if  its  existence  is  merely  hypothetical  and 
arbitrary,  worse  yet.  That  it  was  delineated  finally  in  a 
hypothetical  form,  that  such  hypothesis  came  to  have 
some  semblance  of  reality,  even  so,  the  result  is,  as  defined 
by  the  Commission :  a  new  divide  which  limits  solely  and 
only  the  drainage  area  toward  ike  Atlantic  further  south  than 
Punta  Mona,  and  which  starts  and  separates  itself  from  the 
crest  that  forms  the  divide  of  the  Sixaola  upon  the  north. 

It  is  not  possible  to  controvert  these  fundamental  facts 
that  are  laid  down  by  the  Commission. 

40.  The  appended  map,  Plate  No.  II,  will  show  at  a  glance 
all  the  details  that  have  been  discussed.  In  this  the  posi- 
tions of  the  important  points  that  relate  thereto  have  been 
preserved  as  they  were  laid  down  upon  the  maps  of  the 
Commission,  and  the  same  conventional  signs  were  adopted 
as  used  by  it  to  indicate  the  divide  of  the  Sixaola,  the 
divide  of  the  area  to  the  south  of  Punta  Mona,  etc.,  while 
making  use  of  a  new  conventional  sign  to  express  some- 
thing not  already  defined  upon  the  maps. 

(2)     The  Lower  Sixaola  (continuation). 

41.  Up  to  this  point  the  examination  of  the  Commis- 
sion's Report,  has  dealt  with  certain  strange  and  inexplic- 
able items  proposed  by  it. 

42.  They  are  inexplicable,  because  the  Honorable 
Chief  Justice,  with  great  foresight,  at  an  opportune 
moment,  brought  to  the  knowledge  of  the  Commission  the 


27 

original  text  of  the  French  Award  of  September  ii,  1900, 
and  it  appears  that  the  Commission  took  full  notice  of  it  at 
its  eighth  session,  held  in  Washington,  D.  C,  on  November 
23,  1911.^ 

43.  The  perusal  of  that  document  reveals  the  fact  that 
it  does  not  refer  to  "a  line  that  closes  on  the  North  the 
basin  of  the  Sixaola"  but  to  "a  line  that  closes  on  the  North 
the  valley  of  the  River  Tarire  or  Sixaola."  Here  are  two 
different  and  quite  distinct  ideas,  particularly  when  ex- 
pressed in  technical  language. 

44.  It  is  well  to  ask  here,  before  going  into  the  matter, 
whether  the  four  notable  engineers  who  made  up  the 
Commission  confused  the  meaning  of  ''valley''  and 
"basin"  and  whether  these  two  terms  were  by  them 
considered  synonymous. 

45.  Such  a  thing  cannot  be  presumed.  Synonyms  have 
their  limits  and  those  engineers  knew  how  to  distinguish 
perfectly  between  what  was  a  valley  and  what  was  a  basin; 
and  the  maps  they  presented  are  a  proof  of  this  fact.  It  is 
true  that  Colombia  formerly,  and  afterwards  Panama, 
sought  to  make  these  two  terms  synonymous,  when  this 
question  was  discussed  subsequent  to  the  delivery  of  the 
French  Award,  which  was  confined  to  "*  *  *  the 
line  that  closes  the  valley  *  *  *"  and  not  the  one 
closing  the  basin  (in  French  vallee,  not  bassin) . 

46.  Happily,  the  maps  furnished  by  the  Commission 
are  delineated  in  such  a  way  that  by  a  simple  glance  any 
one  can  separate  the  "valley"  of  the  Sixaola  from  the 
"basin"  of  the  Sixaola. 

47.  In  separate  documents,  the  Professor  of  Geology 
from  Lehigh  University,  Pennsylvania,  and  the  author  of 

^Report,  Vol.  II;  Appendix  No.  i.  Minutes,  p.  31. 


28 

this  report,  have  fully  discussed  the  diflference  existing 
between  "valley"  and  "basin,"  to  which  attention  is 
called,  showing  that  everybody  understands  that  the 
"basin"  is  the  whole  of  the  watershed  belonging  to  a  river, 
to  a  lake  or  a  sea,  while  the  "valley"  is  limited  to  the 
lower  portion  of  the  basin,  so  to  speak — the  bottom  of  it. 

48.  Among  the  most  notable  naturalists,  Figuier  and 
Penck  are  in  full  accordance  with  the  principle  set  forth, 
that  the  valley  is  constituted  by  the  bottom  of  the  depres- 
sions of  hills  and  mountains. 

49.  The  total  depression  between  hills  or  mountains, 
that  encloses  or  constitutes  the  valley  or  valleys  and 
extends  further  on  to  embrace  all  the  regions  that  dis- 
charge their  waters  into  a  given  stream,  is  the  basin  or 
catchment-area  of  that  stream. 

50.  The  difference  is  so  patent  between  the  two  ideas, 
"valley"  and  "basin,"  that  the  very  first  paragraph  of  the 
Loubet  Award  states  them  both,  using  different  words. 
In  the  first  case  the  frontier  closes  on  the  north  the  valley 
of  the  Sixaola ;  and  in  the  second  it  is  the  line  that  divides 
the  watersheds  of  the  two  oceans.  Greater  clearness  in 
two  distinct  ideas  cannot  be  imagined. 

51.  Fortunately,  as  already  indicated,  the  maps  are  so 
explicit  that  it  is  easy  to  trace  upon  them  the  line  that 
closes  upon  the  north  the  valley  of  the  Sixaola. 

(3)  Tracing  of  the  une  that  ci^oses  upon  the  north 
the  valley  of  the  sixaola. 

52.  It  is  very  certain  that,  notwithstanding  all  the 
theories  that  have  been  suggested  in  respect  to  the  forma- 
tion of  valleys,  no  one  has  clearly  defined  where  the  valley 
ends  and  where  the  slope  begins  of  the  height  that,  taken 
together  with  the  valley,  constitutes  the  basin,  since  that 


29 

is  a  particular  physical  fact  to  be  determined  in  each 
case  and  place;  but  such  a  line  does  exist  in  all  valleys 
and  may  be  definitely  determined.  All  that  is  needed  is 
to  establish  the  transverse  or  cross-sections  of  the  basin 
in  question,  perpendicular  to  the  hydraulic  axis  of  the 
current  of  the  river.  These  cross-sections  will  furnish 
the  different  points  of  the  line  that  is  to  be  traced,  and 
once  located  they  may  be  transferred  to  the  maps. 
These  points,  when  joined,  will  form  the  line  that  closes 
the  valley. 

53.  On  the  south  side  and  the  right  bank  of  the  Sixaola 
the  cross-sections  were  not  carried  out,  for  it  was  on  that 
side  the  Sixaola  Valley  stretched  out  and  the  limit  there 
was  not  a  subject  of  discussion,  whilst  upon  the  left  bank 
the  valley  hardly  amounts  to  anything,  as  may  be  seen 
by  a  reference  to  the  maps  and  the  line  hmiting  that  valley. 

54.  As  will  be  observed  further  on,  in  discussing  the 
Upper  Teliri,  the  line  that  closes  upon  the  north  the 
valley  of  the  Telire,  ends  at  a  point  of  which  the  co-ordi- 
nates are:  83°  03'  20"  west  longitude  and  9°  35'  45'' 
north  latitude,  where  the  Telire  Valley  terminates,  and 
where  the  bed  of  the  river  becomes  walled  in  between 
high  mountains  already  forming  a  caiion. 

55.  Up  to  this  point,  also,  the  tracing  of  that  line  extends 
in  the  auxilliary  map  that  is  submitted. 

CONCLUSION. 

56.  Considering  all  the  data  furnished  by  the  Com- 
mission of  Engineers,  and  in  conformity  with  the  language 
of  the  text  of  the  French  Award,  the  line  that  closes  upon 
the  north  the  valley  of  the  Sixaola,  being  already  indicated 
upon  the  map,  the  result  is : 

I .  That  such  line  does  not  start  out  from  Punta  Mona ; 


30 

2.  That  such  Hne  does  not  follow  any  divide;  and 

3.  That  such  line  does  not  connect  with  a  point  or 
points  of  the  Main  Cordillera. 


TRANSVERSE  SECTIONS  AT  POINTS  UPON  THE  SIXAOLA 
AND   TEURI   RIVERS. 

The  data  for  the  transverse  or  cross-sections  here  pre- 
sented were  taken  from  the  maps  and  profiles  of  the 
Commission  of  Engineers. 

Azimuths,  in  all  sections,  were  measured  from  point 
on  the  Sixaola  River.  (See  "Explanation  of  Table," 
Item  III.) 

General  scale  adopted  for  all  cross-sections: 

Horizontal i  :  40,000 

Vertical i  :  100 

EXPLANATION  OF  TABLE. 

DATA   FOR   POINT  ON   THE    SIXAOI^A    RIVER. 

I.  Section  number. 
II.  Name  of  place. 

III.  Geographical  location,  longitude  west  of  Greenwich 

and  latitude  north. 

IV.  Elevations  in  meters  above  sea  level: 

(a)  Bottom  of  the  river. 

(b)  River  at  low  water. 

(c)  River  at  high  water. 

DATA  FOR    THE    POINT   LIMITING    VALLEY    ON   THE    NORTH 
SIDE   OF   RIVER. 

V.  Distance  from  hydraulic  axis  of  river. 
VI.  Azimuth. 

VII.  Geographical  location,  same  as  above. 
VIII.  Elevation  in  meters  above  sea  level. 


31 


o 
o 

Co 
O 


h-J 

«      't 

lOOO 

CN 

O 

cr; 

O 

CO 

o 

CD  00 

00 

I^ 

ON   0 

1 

>— 1 

Mi-iwH-CNrorO'^-'*-                      lOiO  lOO  OO    M    CS 

> 

HH      HH 

00    r^  rf-  M    »o  -^  tJ-  lOOO                      O    lO  »o  cs    O    >o  O 

pr,Mi-iroO»-<CNTl-Ti-                        rO'+'^MiO'^i-i 

e    ro  -^  lO  lOVO    t-^  r^vO  vo                        -^  ro  -^  lO  Tt-  lOVO 

i^rOrorO^OrOrOrOiOCD                       rOfOrOrOrOfO<0 

O^O^^C^O^O^O^O^O^     .                0^0^0^0^0^0^0^ 

t-H 

en 

<U  .     - 

> 

l00^■^0^00^00:^''     "       "Ot-.Tl-000 

,Mroi-'OrOw«-<00'rt                roO'^'-iO'^O 

s»« 

S    i-i    fO  -^  »OVO  00    O    "-1    <N    >-,,      .       fO  lOVO  00    O    fO  lO 

<s    ■^■^■^■^■^■^roio  lO  o  -     -      lOioioioOOO 

l0 

! 

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOJ                 00000000000000 

ooooOOOOOnOo'5"'      ooooooo 
oo   <N    o  00   r--oo  00  00  00  t^               onoo   OS  on  on  ONOO 

t-H 

> 

CN(N<Nl-HI-lH-(l-ll-ll-l(JJ                                      MMWI-IHH)-. 

oogoooooo^          ooooooo 

'00000>oioioO--=<,     .      loioOOiO'-H"-* 

> 

r^OioO<N"^i-ii-ip-i'^-     -      too4ior~^ro 

^"> 

> 

t-H 

<o    cs    CM    (N    (S    cs    -^roN    -^lOfOfOrOfOM    rOrOfOrO 

-OWC^CS<NCSCMCSCS'^rO<NMfOrDN(SMWCM 

vO    ON  «    -^00    -^  O    -^  r^  lO  On  O    roO    ■^  rO  rO  C^  vO 

^                „^Hi-HcsfOrOPOrDrr)'^-^'=t-  >OVO  00    m    ii 

t-H      t-l 

QOOOooOOOOOvOOOOOOO»00 
0    T}-roO    (N    O    CM    ^"^rO"-!    ►-    ^O-^fO-^-^-^i-i 

ib    rD  r^  "^  lO  >0  r^  r^vO    lovo  VO  VO    -^  ro  -^  '^  -^  lOVO 

j 

*^    rOcOfOfOc~Ot~OrOrOrOfOfOrOfOrDrOrorO<~^rO 

OvOnOnOsCnOnOsOnOnOsOnOnOnOnOnOnOnOnOn 

r^u^OOOOOQQOOOOOOOOOO 
.lOiOcoO'^'-'CNiOOOrO'OCMOfONOcMO 

g    i-i    fO  -^  lO^O  00Oi-iNCSCSCN)fO  »o^  00    O    CO  lO    ' 

O    'd-'*':^'^'^^lOlOlOlOlOlO^OlO^O»00    O    O 
^CSCMCSCSCMMCSCSCSCSCSCNiCNCSCSCMCOfOfO 

OOOOOOQOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 

1 

!          bi) 

1 

1          c 

T3 

1— 1 

Zavala  Lan 
Nipvpoitn. 

i 

p. 

t/5 
O 

Ox 
Q  a: 

a! 

c 

1 

p.  Grande . 
VorWin 

4- 
t 

!c/: 

a: 
c 

i 

<    P3    U                                                    1 

•—J 

i-i    Cs 

i    c- 

"5  -^ 

h  u 

-i^ 

^ 

^a 

c 

^  On  ON  On  C 

1- 

^ 

c< 

•)  r 

-  u 

•JVC 

32 

Cross-Section  No.  i. 
ZAVALA  LANDING. 


X,  Hydraulic  axis  of  river. 

L,  Point  limiting  valley  on  north  side  of  river. 


Cross-Section  No.  2. 
NIEVECITO. 


X,  Hydraulic  axis  of  river. 

L,  Point  limiting  valley  on  north  side  of  river. 


IS59—3 


33 

Cross-Section  No.  3. 
PARAISO. 


X,  Hydraulic  axis  of  river. 

Iv,  Point  limiting  valley  on  north  side  of  river. 


Cross-Section  No.  4. 
DOS  CANOS. 


3  met ere  I  above  Sea  Idvel 

I I I 


X,  Hydraulic  axis  of  river. 

L,,  Point  limiting  valley  on  north  side  of  river. 


34 

Cross-vSkction  No.  5. 
SANCHKZ. 


•I 

Z  |(neters   above    Sea   level 


X,  Hydraulic  axis  of  river. 

L,  Point  limiting  valley  on  north  side  of  river. 


Cross-Section  No.  6. 
CUABRE. 


11   meters 


X,  Hydraulic  axis  of  river. 

I/,  Point  limiting  valley  on  north  side  of  river. 


35 

Cross-Section  No.  7. 
WATZI. 


X,  Hydraulic  axis  of  river. 


36 


Cross-Section  No.  8. 


Sea  level. 


X,  Hydraulic  axis  of  river. 

h,  Point  limiting  valley  on  north  side  of  river. 


37 

Cross-Section  No,  9. 
PIEDRA  GRANDE. 


X,  Hydraulic  axis  of  river. 

L,  Point  limiting  valley  on  north  side  of  river. 


38 

Cross-Section  No.  9A. 
PIEDRA  GRADE. 


X,  Hydraulic  axis  of  river. 


39 

Cross-Section  No.  9B. 
PIEDRA  GRANDE. 


X,  Hydraulic  axis  of  river. 


40 

Cross-Section  No.  9C. 
PIEDRA  GRANDE. 


30  meters  a"bovte  $fe*  [lleveli 
\ !i  T  i  I 


X,  Hydraulic  axis  of  river. 


41 

Cross-Section  No.  io. 
YORKIN. 


Sea   le^!^el 


X,  Hydraulic  axis  of  river. 

L,  Point  limiting  valley  on  north  side  of  river. 


42 


Cross-Section  No.  ii, 


X  L 


Sea   leyel- 


X,  Hydraulic  axis  of  river. 

L,  Point  limiting  valley  on  north  side  of  river. 


43 

Cross-Section  No.  12. 
SURETKA. 


50  metprs   above  ^ea  levelj 


X,  Hydraulic  axis  of  river. 

ly,  Point  limiting  valley  on   north  side  of  river. 


44 

Cross-Section  No.  13. 
SHIROU. 


58  meters'alSve  Sea   level 


X,  Hydraulic  axis  of  river. 

L,  Point  limiting  valley  on  north  side  of  river. 


45 


Cross-Section  No.  14. 


X  L 


X,  Hydraulic  axis  of  river. 

ly,  Point  limiting  valley  on  north  side  of  river. 


46 

Cross-Section  No.  15. 
SIRUKICHA. 


102.  meters  !  aljove  fe^a  level 


X,  Hydraulic  axis  of  river. 


47 

Cross-Section  No.  i6. 
CANON. 


109  "meters  ;ab4ve   ^e;a  level 
X,  Hydraulic  axis  of  river. 


48 


Ui 

(U 

-t-> 

a 

to 

^ 

"§ 

-a 

fi 

ffl 

a 

r 

^ 

<u 

■-P 

v-> 

1 

d 

^ 

-s 

> 
o 

X5 

1 

3 

Xi 

rt 

^. 

tn 

+J 

a 

O' 

O 

• 

■*->■ 

•^ 

s 

lOOioOOOo"^ 

XJ' 

s 

o 

(S    rj-  r^  lO  rooo    ON  t^ 

!>■ 

vs. 

elev 

CN    n    <S    ■rl->0    ON  ro^ 

r> 

O 

pq 

i3 

s? 

E-H 

1 

"a 

tfl 

Co      i-i 

1      o 

^-1 

(Tt 

to    a 

o 

•    u 

> 

^     <u 

(U 

•  3 

(U' 

O  -6 

s 

:  e   :   :   :   :   :   : 

^ 

SI 

:  ^   :   :   :   :   :   : 

•  a 

ai 

o 

i-r 

tJ. 

i^ 

L'^ 

oooooooo 

J! 

n 

O      OOCOOOCOOOOOOsOn 

1 

t-H      H-t      hH      M      M      hH 

(U 

O 

t3 

«.      loOOQOOOO 
•-lOfsO'-'iOMio 

^ 

o 

rt 

-M 

o 

03 

vo  vo  vo    t^vo    ro  cs  00 

a 

h-r 

o      OnOnCnOnOnOnOnOn 

T 

• 

•So 

bio 

^     OOcNfoOOOO 

o 

u 

c 

lOt-^ONCSlOOiOlO 

^ 

O 

OOOi-ii-ifNC^c^ 

a 

(U 

o       rorDfOfOrOrO<r>fO 

c 

o 

°      OOOOCOOOOOOOOOOO 

>_j 

<■•-< 

o  i  c 

t^oo    ON  O    I-"    cs    ro  -^ 

1 

^^ 

WMi-iCSCSCNCSCS 

1559—5 


49 
Cross-Sections. 


20&i  meters  abovp  ^ea  level. 


ataye  sea  level. 


440  meters  abo/vd'^spa  level. 


50 
Cross-Sections. 


620  metefq  above  "igi|C  sea  level . 


960  meters  dio'^re   the  ^ea  level. 


NO.  24 


No.  23 


13B0  meter»-^T)oye  gea  level. 


1$50  materia  abo^  aea  jevel.. 


51 

(4)  Th^  Upper  Teuri. 

57.  Returning  again  to  the  field  we  are  obliged  to  occupy 
for  the  discussion  of  the  report  of  the  engineers,  which,  as 
we  have  just  shown,  is  far  from  being  the  one  that  ought 
to  furnish  the  ground  for  discussion,  we  come  once  more 
to  the  divide  we  followed  in  the  detail  map  No.  2,  sheet 
No.  I,  which,  from  the  point  where  it  diverges  from  the 
other  divide  that  we  said  was  at  the  intersection  of  meridian 
82°  40'  47"  west  longitude  and  parallel  9°  36'  north  lati- 
tude, proceeds  toward  the  northwest  in  almost  a  straight 
line,  until  it  reaches  parallel  9°  37',  which  it  cuts  at  the 
meridian  of  82°  42'  52",  and  follows  it  to  the  meridian  of 
82°  43'.  Thence  the  divide  runs  southernly  along  this 
meridian  to  the  parallel  of  9°  36'  43",  where  turning 
toward  the  west  it  cuts  the  meridian  of  82°  44'  at  the 
intersection  of  the  latter  with  parallel  9°  36'  38",  which  it 
follows  to  regain  a  few  seconds  further  on  the  parallel  of  9° 
37',  which  it  cuts  at  82°  44'  41 "  and  it  follows  to  the  meridian 
of  82°  45'  at  the  parallel  9°  37'  29",  to  reach  Buena  Vista 
at  Station  A-221.  From  this  point  the  divide  proceeds 
toward  the  west,  some  degrees  to  the  south,  until  it  comes 
to  the  meridian  82°  47'  at  parallel  9°  37'  05",  where  it  con- 
fronts the  course  of  the  River  Sixaola,  at  Sanchez  Station, 
where  the  central  office  of  the  Engineer  Corps  was  located. 

58.  It  will  be  noted  that  throughout  the  whole  of  the 
section  thus  far  transverse  of  the  divide  there  appear,  flow- 
ing toward  the  south,  many  brooks,  creeks  and  little  streams 
that  are  left  without  names  upon  the  maps,  although  they 
are  well  known  and  may  be  found  with  their  proper  names 
on  maps  perhaps  not  so  correct  but  yet  more  descriptive 
than  those  of  the  Commission. 

59.  In  the  supplemental  plan  hereto  appended,  based 


52 

upon  the  originals  of  the  Commission,  after  having  pre- 
pared the  cross-sections,  the  limits  of  the  valley  have  been 
determined  and  the  line  delineated. 

60.  From  the  Sanchez  Station,  where  the  divide  is  found 
very  close  to  the  River  Sixaola,  the  line  proceeds  toward 
the  west,  some  degrees  to  the  north,  until  it  reaches  Cuabre 
at  meridian  82°  48'  and  parallel  9°  37'  30",  where  it  is  also 
very  near  the  river.  From  Cuabre  the  divide  runs  on 
toward  the  northwest  to  parallel  9°  39'  28",  at  Station 
B-154,  at  an  elevation  of  300  meters.  From  this  point, 
B-154,  the  divide  follows  a  westerly  direction,  practically 
parallel  to  the  course  of  the  river  and  so  continues  to 
meridian  82°  54'  and  parallel  9°  39'  48",  confining  between 
the  divide  and  the  river  the  course  of  the  little  stream  of 
Watzi,  a  tributary  of  the  Sixaola  on  the  left. 

61.  Admitting  that  the  divide  delineated  may  really  be 
the  crest  that  bounds  the  watershed  upon  the  north  of  the 
Sixaola,  it  is  impossible  to  consider  either  the  Watzi 
Valley  or  the  other  small  valleys  of  the  tributaries  as 
the  valley  of  the  Sixaola;  but  neither  as  forming  part 
of  this  valley,  because  they  are  essentially  distinct  and 
because  these  lands  are  never  inundated  by  the  big  river, 
as  shown  by  the  elevations  of  that  cordillera  indicated 
upon  the  map  of  the  Commission,  at  the  foot  of  which  the 
Sixaola  flows. 

62.  From  the  point  stated,  the  divide  proceeds  toward 
the  northwest,  until  it  reaches  its  maximum  at  parallel 
9°  40'  46"  and  meridian  82°  55'  38",  at  an  elevation  of  470 
meters.  Thence  the  divide  proceeds  rapidly  toward 
the  south  to  seek  the  sources  of  the  Shiroli  at  Station 
B-700  shown  upon  the  map,  at  an  elevation  of  471  meters. 
From  this  station  the  divide  continues  toward  the  west  to 


53 

meridian  82°  59'  40"  and  parallel  9°  37'  22",  almost  at  the 
edge  of  the  map. 

63.  But  during  this  entire  course,  by  looking  at  the 
map  it  can  be  seen  that  high  and  craggy  Cordilleras  border 
at  times  the  margin  of  the  Telire,  and,  as  has  been 
explained,  these  Cordilleras  are  bounding  the  valley  of  the 
Telire  and  not  the  divide,  properly  speaking.  The  foot 
of  these  cordilleras  is  the  limit  of  the  valley.  Here  ends 
also  the  map  we  have  been  examining,  "Map  No.  2; 
Sheet  No.  i." 

64.  The  map  that  continues  the  tracing  of  the  divide 
is  "Map  No.  i;  Sheet  No.  i,"  upon  a  scale  of  i  :  40,000. 
Here  we  note  that  the  divide  proceeds  toward  the  west, 
some  degrees  to  the  north,  thus  separating  the  basins  of  the 
River  Telire  and  the  River  Estrella,  and  running  in  front 
of  Suretka  and  Sirukicha,  parallel  to  the  course  of  the 
Telire,  to  meridian  83°  10'  and  parallel  9°  38'  40",  where  it 
is  near  the  apex  of  the  "Cerro  Doble."  Thence  the  divide 
continues  toward  the  west  and  reaches  the  meridian  of 
83°  20'  at  Station  66-A  and  parallel  9°  40',  from  whence  it 
goes  southward  and  reaches  the  elevation  of  3,837  meters  at 
Chirripo  Grande,  at  meridian  83°  29'  38"  west  and  9°  29'  28" 
north  latitude.  Just  at  this  point  the  divide  ceases  to  be 
the  boundary  of  the  Telire  basin  upon  the  north  and  from 
this  point,  according  to  the  statement  of  the  Commission 
itself,  that  divide  is  uncertain  in  its  continuation  toward 
Durika. 

65.  The  plan  that  shows  the  line  that  separates  the 
valleys  of  the  Sixaola  and  Telire  upon  the  north  has  been 
traced,  then,  according  to  the  explanations  here  set  forth, 
to  its  extremity;  that  is  to  say,  to  the  height  in  front  of 
Chirripo  Grande  at  parallel  9°  35'  50"  and  meridian  83° 
03'  30" 


54 

66.  The  purpose  of  the  long  description  given  above 
was  to  carry  the  deHneated  divide  as  far  as  Chirripo  Grande. 

67.  The  Commission  of  Engineers  was  justified  in  declar- 
ing the  divide  beyond  that  point  as  uncertain.  Indeed, 
from  the  heights  of  Chirripo  toward  the  headwaters  of  the 
Teliri  extends  a  very  wide  and  rough  country  and  at  some 
distances  apart  from  each  other,  various  low  ridges  emerge 
that  afterward  become  the  watersheds  of  rivers. 

It  is  very  difficult  to  distinguish  between  the  streams 
that  flow  into  the  Upper  Teliri  and  those  that  run  into  the 
other  rivers.^ 

68.  The  "divide"  that  has  been  described,  therefore, 
is  one  line  among  many  others  that  could  be  drawn 
cutting  numerous  mountain  chains  that  seem  to  run 
towards  the  Telire,  in  a  direction  parallel  to  the  Great 
Cordillera  that  separates  the  waters  of  the  two  oceans. 

69.  The  most  eloquent  demonstration  of  this  basic  fact 
was  submitted  by  the  commission  in  the  album  of  photo- 
graphs taken  from  different  points  of  view,  especially  in 
photograph  No.  125,  and  the  copy  upon  tracing  cloth, 
entitled:  "View  from  D-82."  The  Station  D-82  was 
located  at  the  intersection  of  meridian  83°  06'  30"  and 
parallel  9°  37'  50". 

70.  The  photographs  show  that  there  is  not  only  one 
parallel  chain,  but  several,  and  the  high  ranges  that 
bound  the  course  of  the  Telire  River,  which  are  indicated 
and  laid  down  upon  the  maps,  are,  as  well  as  the  photo- 
graphs, the  most  conclusive  word  that  could  be  spoken. 

71.  But  the  Telire  Valley  does  not  penetrate  so  far. 
Practically,  as  the  maps  show,  from  Sirukicha  the  river 
loses  its  valley  and  the  latter  becomes  a  caiion.     High 

*See  the  explanation  of  this  idea  in  Chapter  IV,  Answer  to 
Question  i,  paragraph  3,  of  this  paper. 


65 

mountains  wall  in  the  course  of  the  Telire,  and  a  little 
further  on,  several  tributaries,  with  different  names  come 
down  hemmed  in  likewise  in  deep  gulches  or  canons,  to 
form  the  "Teliri. ' '  Sirukicha  is  located  at  the  intersection 
of  meridian  83°  03'  20"  west  with  parallel  9°  35'  45" 
north  latitude. 

This  geographic  characteristic  feature  has  always 
marked  the  proper  distinction  between  the  two  rivers,  the 
Sixaola  and  the  Telire.  The  Sixaola  has  a  valley  whereas 
the  Telire  does  not. 

According  to  the  maps  of  the  Commission  and  Plate  No. 
II  of  this  Report,  the  valley  of  the  Telire  ends  at  Piedra 
Grande,  where  it  is  restricted  by  dikes.  From  Piedra 
Grande  to  Sirukicha  there  is  a  narrow  strip  of  land  called 
the  Telire  Valley. 

The  Indians  and  the  people  of  the  place  give  the  name 
of  Tarire,  Telire  or  Telidi  to  one  of  the  tributaries  of  the 
Sixaola,  not  certainly  the  main,  which  discharges  its  water 
near  Suretka. 


CHAPTER  III. 


SOME  EXPLANATIONS  AS  TO  THE  TRACING  OF 
THE  LINE  THAT  CLOSES  THE  VALLEY  OF  THE 
SIXAOLA  UPON  THE  NORTH. 

1.  In  the  preceding  chapter  the  method  adopted  for 
tracing  this  Hne  was  indicated,  in  accord  with  the  data 
furnished  by  the  maps  and  profiles  the  Commission 
submitted. 

2.  The  scale  for  horizontal  distances  is  the  same  as 
that  of  the  maps,  i  :  40,000 ;  but  it  was  found  necessary 
to  enlarge  the  scale  for  the  elevations  to  i  :  100,  for  the 
purpose  of  exhibiting  more  clearly  the  cross-sections. 

3.  The  character  of  the  ground  at  each  cross-section 
is  indicated  by  the  same  colors  as  those  used  upon  the 
geological  map  of  the  Commission,  so  that  it  was  needless 
to  repeat  the  legend  as  to  their  signification. 

4.  Where  no  color  appears  upon  a  cross-section,  it  is 
because  upon  the  map  nothing  was  specified  by  the 
geologist. 

5.  These  explanations  having  been  made,  it  is  proper 
to  state  here  an  important  justification  for  the  tracing 
that  is  presented,  based  upon  the  same  data  furnished 
by  the  Report  of  the  Commission. 

6.  Concisely  stated  the  argument  is  as  follows:  What 
is  the  valley  of  the  River  Sixaola  upon  the  north  side, 
and  how  far  does  it  extend?  By  what  documents  is  the 
tracing  that  is  now  presented  supported? 

7.  In  two  separate  inquiries  as  to  the  precise  and  correct 
interpretation  of  the  terms,  "valleys"  and  "basins,"  one 
prepared  by  the  Professor  of  Geology  from  Lehigh  Uni- 
versity,  South  Bethlehem,   Pa.,   and  the  other   by  the 

56 


57 

author  of  this  report,  the  condensed  opinion  of  the  highest 
authorities  is  given  as  to  the  strict  technical  appHcation 
of  these  words,  "valleys"  and  "basins,"  and  those  papers 
complete  this  study.  But  they  will  be  disregarded,  for  the 
moment,  so  as  to  locate  the  tracing  by  taking  only  the 
same  interpretation  as  the  engineers  of  the  Commission 
gave  to  these  terms. 

8.  It  is  very  certain  that  the  Geologist  of  the  Com- 
mission stated  his  own  opinions  in  this  respect  in  his 
report,  where  he  says  among  other  things: 

"In  prehistoric  times,  then,  practically  all  of  the 
creeks  including  Gadokan  and  those  northeast  of  it, 
which  now  flow  into  the  ocean,  were  tributaries  of  the 
Sixaola  River;  so  that  within  a  few  hundred  or  some 
thousands  of  years  the  old  natural  drainage  basin  of 
the  Sixaola  on  the  northwest  side  of  the  river,  below 
La  Cana  Creek,  has  been  modified  by  losing  some 
of  its  tributaries.  This  introduces  a  sharp  distinction 
between  the  Sixaola  Valley  proper  and  the  present 
Sixaola  drainage  area . ' '  ( Report  of  the  Geologist ,  p .  2  4 . ) 

9.  Before  citing  other  paragraphs  from  this  document, 
it  will  be  well  to  briefly  consider  the  foregoing  on  account 
of  its  fundamental  importance  in  this  controversy. 

10.  It  is  very  evident  that  the  paragraph  contains  two 
things.  The  first  is  the  hypothesis  formulated  by  the 
Geologist  in  the  statement  that  some  thousands  of  years 
ago  the  basin  of  the  Sixaola  embraced  the  basin  of  the 
rivers  that  now  discharge  their  waters  directly  into  the 
ocean.  The  second  is  a  fact :  that  is  to  say,  that  in  the 
present  epoch,  the  basin  of  the  Sixaola  is  limited  and  differs 
in  its  character  from  the  basins  of  the  other  rivers  that  now 
discharge  their  waters  into  the  ocean.  The  dilemma  can 
be  very  easily  solved  by  electing  between  the  hypothesis 
and  the  fact. 


58 

1 1 .  This  fundamental  fact,  clearly  brought  out  by  the 
very  author  who  undertakes  to  deprive  it  of  effect,  is  the 
best  proof  that  we  adduce  to  establish  once  for  all  that 

the  basin  of  the  Sixaola  is  foreign,  in  the  present  epoch,  to 
the  basins  of  the  Gadokan  and  the  other  rivers  that  discharge 
their  waters  directly  into  the  ocean  to  the  west  of  the  Sixaola. 

12.  The  Geologist  corroborates  the  fact  that  he  brings 
out  when  he  says : 

"The  present  Sixaola  drainage,  comparatively  re- 
cently modified,  geologically  speaking,  as  it  has  been, 
is  but  a  detail  of  the  large  unit."  (Report  of  the 
Geologist,  p.  25). 

13.  While  not  deeming  it  needful  to  question  the 
hypothesis,  at  least,  of  the  Geologist,  we  take  what  he 
states  to  be  an  actual  and  present  fact,  that  the  Sixaola 
Valley  at  the  present  day  is  but  a  detail  of  what  it  for- 
merly was. 

14.  Agreeing  with  the  Geologist,  the  Commission  recog- 
nized that  a  kilometer  below  Piedra  Grande  a  dike  of 
biotite-basalt-porphyry  was  thrown  out  toward  the  river 
from  the  opposite  side,^  and  as  he  literally  states: 

15.  "  The  Sixaola  Valley  here  has  been  restricted  by 
these  difficultly  erodable  rocks.  Just  below  here  it 
widens  out  into  what  may  be  called  the  lower  Sixaola 
Valley,  and  above  here  into  the  wide,  flat  upper  vSixa- 
ola  or  Talamanca  Valley."" 

16.  The  author  here  could  not  have  been  more  explicit 
or  clear.  He  had  before  him  his  own  map  which  he  sub- 
mits, from  which  it  appears  that  the  point  he  refers  to, 
situated  a  kilometer  below  Piedra  Grande,  is  distant  6,667 

'Report  of  the  Geologist,  p.  30. 
'Report  of  the  Geologist,  p.  31. 


59 

meters  to  the  south  of  the  divide  we  have  just  defined  as 
the  Hmit  of  the  valley,  and  at  this  point  he  declares:  "The 
»  Sixaola  Valley  here  has  been  restricted  by  these  difficultly 
erodable  rocks."  Still  fearing  that  he  had  not  made  his 
idea  sufficiently  clear  and  precise,  he  undertook  to  get  at 
the  reason  for  the  restriction  of  the  valley  at  this  point, 
and  added:  "Now,  this  restriction  of  the  Sixaola  Valley 
could  only  be  caused  by  *  *  *"^  And  he  went  on  to 
say,  further:  "The  chief  factor  in  the  restriction  of  the 
valley  here,  then,  is  undoubtedly     *     *     *."^ 

17.  There  was,  then,  no  lapsus  calami  in  the  statement 
of  the  Geologist  that  "the  Sixaola  Valley  here  has  been 
restricted,"  because  he  immediately  afterward  twice  con- 
firms it  by  pointing  out  the  causes  for  such  restriction. 

18.  The  effect  of  this  was  to  put  the  Geologist  of  the 
Commission  in  harmony  with  it  and  with  all  of  the  highest 
authorities  in  the  matter,  as  regards  the  precise  and  correct 
definition  of  a  "valley,"  which  is  entirely  distinct  from  the 
"basin"  that  is  bounded  by  the  divide. 

19.  Starting  then  from  this  categorical  basis,  going 
down  the  Sixaola  Valley  it  widened  out,  as  the  Commission 
indicated  by  the  absence  of  level-curves,  and  more  explic- 
itly when  it  said : 

"In  practically  every  case  the  flat  ground  extending 
toward  the  Sixaola  River  from  the  lowest  contour 
shown  on  the  map  is  marshy."^ 

20.  As  may  be  seen  by  the  map  submitted,  these  details 
have  been  minutely  followed  in  its  preparation  and  espe- 

^Report  of  the  Geologist,  p.  31. 
-Report  of  the  Geologist,  p.  31. 
^Report  of  the  Commission,  p.  29. 


60 

daily  in  tracing  the  line  that  separates  or  limits  the  valley 
of  the  river  upon  the  north. 

21.  The  cross-section  No.  9- A  shows  very  clearly  the* 
restriction  referred  to  in  the  Geologist's  Report.     The  rest 
of  the  cross-sections  farther  down  stream,  as  well  as  those 
traced  up  stream,  show  the  point  limiting  the  valley  that 
edges  the  left  bank  of  the  Sixaola  upon  its  north  side. 

22.  Even  at  Zavala  Landing,  according  to  what  is  sub- 
mitted by  the  Commission,  there  is  no  divide  visible,  and 
down  stream  to  the  coast  no  level-contours  appear. 

23.  In  conformity  with  this  description  the  first  cross- 
section  was  drawn  at  Zavala  Landing  and  at  this  very 
point  is  where  the  line  begins  that  separates  or  limits  the 
Valley  of  the  Sixaola  upon  the  north. 

24.  In  the  same  way,  going  up  stream  from  cross-section 
No  9-A  at  Piedra  Grande,  other  cross-sections  were  drawn, 
No.  9-B,  No.  9-C  and  No.  10,  and  thence  on  to  No.  15  at 
Sirukicha,  where  the  narrowing  valley  closed  in  and 
came  to  an  end,  the  canon  of  the  river  continuing  in  that 
form  onward  to  its  headwaters.  That  is  the  reason  that 
justifies  the  termination  of  the  line  limiting  upon  the  north 
the  valleys  of  the  Sixaola  and  Telire  rivers,  as  may  be 
seen  upon  the  map,  at  the  place  named  Sirukicha,  indicated. 

25.  This  demonstrates,  therefore,  to  satiety,  the  origin 
and  the  reason  for  the  line  which  has  been  traced  upon 
the  maps  of  the  Commission  and  based  upon  its  own  ideas. 

26.  There  would  scarcely  remain  the  least  doubt  in 
respect  to  the  valleys  of  the  tributaries  upon  the  left  side 
of  said  rivers,  but  for  the  difference  made  by  the  Com- 
mission between  the  valleys  of  the  tributaries  of  the 
rivers  and  that  of  the  rivers  themselves.  Among  other 
citations  that  might  be  made  from  its  report,  it  is 
sufficient  to  quote  the  fundamental  one: 


61 

"The  headwaters  of  these  streams  are  between 
the  various  branches  of  the  lower  or  ocean  end  of  the 
ridges  or  series  of  ridges,  just  as  various  tributaries 
of  the  Sixaola  have  their  headwaters  between  the 
other  branches  on  the  same  side  of  the  upper  portion 
of  the  same  ridge  or  series  of  ridges.  Broadly  speak- 
ing, the  small  areas  drained  by  these  streams  would 
in  general  be  understood  as  included  when  speaking 
of  the  valley  of  the  Sixaola,  although  technically  they 
are  independent  valleys."^ 

27.  So  fundamental  an  assertion,  which  is  moreover  in 
accord  with  the  opinions  of  the  most  eminent  authorities 
upon  the  subject,  is  the  one  which  has  been  followed  so 
as  not  to  include  in  the  Sixaola  and  Telire  Valleys  the 
small  valleys  of  the  tributaries  upon  the  north  of  that  river. 

28.  That  the  Commission  was  in  accord  with  what  the 
Geologist  laid  down  as  the  "Valley  of  the  Sixaola,"  and 
has  just  been  stated,  is  not  only  confirmed  by  the  fact 
that  it  adopted  his  report,  but  also  that  in  referring  to 
the  order  in  which  the  work  was  carried  on,  it  said : 

"In  the  interval  from  June  2  to  September  16, 
Party  C  extended  a  continuous  triangulation  *  *  * 
and  secured  measured  directions  and  vertical  angles 
to  many  peaks  on  the  main  cordillera  from  Pico 
Blanco  to  Durika,  inclusive,  and  to  many  other 
summits,  especially  on  the  slopes  toward  the  Tala- 
manca  Valley."^ 

29.  Party  C  was  engaged  in  the  reconnaissance  of  the 
cordillera  and  from  thence  fixed  points  upon  the  slopes 
that  led  to  the  valley  of  Talamanca,  from  which  it  may 

^Report  of  the  Commission,  pp.  50,  51. 
^Report  of  the  Commission,  pp.  37,  38. 

IS59— 6 


62 

be  inferred  that  the  Commission  considered  these  slopes 
also  as  forming  the  basin,  but  not  the  valley  of  Talamanca. 

30.  The  map  to  which  this  chapter  relates  is  thus  left 
firmly  established  in  all  its  parts. 

The  whole  "North  Divide  of  the  drainage  area  of  the 
River  Sixaola,"  as  has  been  plotted  from  the  maps  of  the 
Commission,  is  the  North  Divide  of  the  drainage  areas 
of  the  rivers  Sixaola  and  Telire  or  Teliri,  because  from  the 
mouth  of  the  Yorkin  the  River  is  always  called  Telire  or 
Teliri  River. 


CHAPTER  IV. 


ANSWERS 

TO  THE  QUESTIONS  PROPOSED  BY  COSTA  RICA 
AND  PANAMA  TO  THE  COMMISSION  OF 
ENGINEERS 

In  the  order  in   which  the  Commission  submitted 

THEM     FOR     THE     EXAMINATION     OF      THE     AsSISTANT- 
EnGINEERS   in   the  FiEIvD. 


(i)  Is  it  a  fact,  or  not,  that  all  the  detached  buttresses 
or  spurs  of  the  Cordilleras  to  the  left  of  the  River  Tarire, 
up-stream  from  the  face  of  the  mouth  of  the  Yorquin, 
have  their  axes  in  a  Northwest  direction  and  approximate 
courses;  and  that  they  form  the  divisions  of  the  waters 
of  the  various  tributaries  of  the  River  Tarire  on  said 
left  bank,  which  tributaries,  by  reason  of  the  depths  of  their 
valleys  transverse  to  the  Tarire,  prevent  the  existence  of  a 
continuous  chain  of  elevations  having  the  character  of  a 
spur  and  fulfilling  the  two  conditions  of 

(a)  Uniting  the  extreme  of  Punta  Mona  with  the 
Main  Cordillera  that  divides  the  waters  that  flow  to 
one  ocean  and  to  the  other;  and 

(b)  Closing  on  the  north  the  valley  of  the  River 
Sixaola  or  Tarire. 

(63) 


64 


ANSWER. 

1 .  Yes,  it  is  a  fact ;  the  maps  and  reports  are  in  accord- 
ance with  the  text  of  this  question. 

2.  The  summary  of  the  documents  shows  that  no  con- 
tinuous chain  of  elevations  exists,  having  the  character  of 
a  ridge  or  spur,  starting  from  the  cordillera  that  separates 
the  waters  of  the  two  oceans  and  ending  at  Punta  Mona. 

The  low  ridges  that  border  the  sources  of  the  Tehri 
upon  the  north,  do  not  start  from  any  point  on  the  Main 
Cordillera^ 

3.  The  point  marked  by  the  Commission  as  the  junction 
of  the  divide  limiting  upon  the  north  the  Sixaola  Basin  with 
the  Main  Cordillera  (Chirripo  Grande),  at  the  intersection 
of  parallel  9°  29'  28"  north  latitude  and  the  meridian  of 
83°  29'  38"  west  of  Greenwich^  is  arbitrary,  because  the 
same  map  and  the  report^  indicate  the  Main  Cordillera  as 
uncertain  from  the  point  marked  to  the  intersection  of 
meridian  83°  30'  00"  and  parallel  9°  27'  30",  with  an 
elevation  similar  to  that  of  Chirripo  Grande.  Between 
these  limits,  the  distance  of  which  is  3,735  meters,  there 
are  not  only  one  but  many  points  from  which  divides 
originate  for  a  multitude  of  rivulets,  symmetrical  in  their 
situation  and  parallels,  that  further  on  form  the  canon  of 
the  Upper  Teliri. 

To  make  this  topography  clear,  extend  the  right  hand 
upon  a  flat  surface.  The  little  finger  will  represent  the 
Main  Cordillera,  the  thumb  will  indicate  the  initial  de- 
pressions of  the  springs  that  go  to  form  later  the  Upper 
Teliri  and  the  forefinger  will  represent  the  peak  of  Chir- 
ripo Grande.  The  back  of  the  hand  between  the  little 
finger  and  the  thumb  will  represent  the  high  plateau  to 
which  reference  was  made  in  chapter  II,  paragraph  67. 

'Photograph  Album  of  the  Commission;  Photograph  No.  125. 
^Report  of  the  Commisson,  p.  59. 
^Idem,  p.  57. 


65 

4-  Those  divides  of  the  rivulets  pointed  out  first  form 
the  steep  bluffs  that  constitute  the  continuous  cafion  of 
the  River  Teliri,  from  its  sources  to  Sirukicha.^ 

5.  At  Station  A-221,  located  at  Buena  Vista,  according 
to  the  maps  and  Report  of  the  Commission  (p.  30),  the 
divide  cannot  follow  the  line  that  is  marked  from  there. 
It  only  requires  an  examination  of  the  map  to  see  that  the 
divide  must  proceed  from  thence  toward  the  north  by 
greater  and  more  regular  elevations  than  those  it  was 
obliged  to  follow.  That  tracing,  contrary  to  the  natural 
topography  revealed  by  those  very  maps,  is  at  variance 
with  the  very  data  upon  which  it  is  based.^ 

6.  According  to  the  contour  levels  shown  upon  those 
maps,  the  divide  ought  to  proceed  from  said  Station  A-221 
toward  the  north. 

7.  From  Station  A-221  a  secondary  branch  starts,  which 
proceeds  almost  parallel  to  the  Sixaola,  and  from  which, 
in  its  turn,  two  other  small  inferior  branches  are  diverted 
toward  the  south;  the  one  that  runs  to  its  end  between 
Middle  Creek  and  Gadokan,  and  the  one  that  lies  between 
Gadokan  and  the  Sixaola,^  which  are  permanent  and  are 
only  submerged  during  brief  periods  of  high  water  in  the 
rivers  and  near  their  outlet.^ 

^Appendix  No.  3;  Report  of  Mr.  E.  R.  Martin,  p.  14. 
"Map  of  the  Commission  No.  2,  Sheet  No.  i,  and  Report  of 
the  Commission,  p.  30.  ^ 

^Legend  on  map  of  Commission  No.  2,  Sheet  No.  i. 


66 

8.  In  an  arbitrary  and  hypothetical  way  a  divide  was 
delineated  from  the  point  at  82°  40'  46"  west  of  Greenwich 
and  9°  36'  north  latitude,  situated  upon  that  secondary 
branch  referred  to  in  the  preceding  paragraph  (No.  7), 
so  as  to  run  it  across  by  a  capricious  zigzag  and  upon  a 
purely  imaginary  line  and  make  it  terminate  at  Punta 
Mona.' 

9.  This  divide,  as  has  been  described  in  the  foregoing 
section,  never  closes  the  northern  limit  of  the  basin  of 
theSixaola;  but,  as  stated  by  the  Commission,  the  whole 
north  divide  is  not  always  and  perhaps  only  at  times  the 
north  limit  of  the  drainage  area  of  the  Sixaola  and  Telire 
rivers.^ 

10.  Punta  Mona  is  completely  isolated  from  the  other 
solid  ground  by  Swamp  A,  shown  by  the  maps,  which 
extends  beyond  Manzanillo  as  far  as  Grape  Point.' 

11.  The  valleys  of  the  tributaries  of  the  Sixaola  are, 
technically  speaking,  "independent  valleys."* 

II. 

(2)  Is  it  a  fact,  or  not,  that  the  geological  character  of 
the  Main  Cordillera,  dividing  the  waters  of  the  two  oceans, 
is  eruptive  and  is  particularly  characterized  by  crystalline 
rocks ;  that  its  buttresses  and  spurs  have  the  same  nature ; 
and  that  said  buttresses  and  spurs,  upon  the  left  bank 
of  the  Sixaola,  come  to  an  end  before  they  reach  the  front 
of  the  outlet  of  the  River  Yorquin  into  the  Sixaola,  to 
which  and  even  above  such  outlet  the  deltic  formation  of 

'Map  of  Commission  No.  2,  Sheet  No.  2;  Report  of  Commis- 
sion, p.  55. 

^Report  of  Commission,  p.  5. 
^Idem,  p.  30. 
*Idem,  p.  51. 


67 

the  said  Sixaola  extends,  as  before  indicated,  level  and 
subject  to  overflow? 

ANSWER. 

1.  The  report  of  the  Geologist,  agreeing  with  Gabb,^ 
answers  this  question  affirmatively. 

2.  The  Main  Cordillera  is  made  up  of  eruptive  rocks, 
lavas,  etc.,'  "acid  type,"  that  is,  crystalline  rocks,  and 
its  offshoots  are  of  the  same  character,  like  the  great  dike 
of  Piedra  Grande.' 

3.  The  same  Geologist  also  says  that  the  Main  Cordil- 
lera and  its  immediate  spurs  are  a  much  older  formation 
than  the  lands  near  the  coast.^ 

4.  The  rocks  called  by  the  Geologist  "Basics,"  and 
which  in  petrography  or  the  science  of  the  constitution  of 
rocks  are  synonomous  with  crystalline  rocks,^  terminate 
at  Piedra  Grande,  in  the  same  massif  (solid  mass)  that 
appears  at  the  mouth  of  the  Yorkin.^ 

III. 

(3)  Ascertain  and  report  whether  there  is  a  central 
chain  of  mountains,  ridge  or  main  divide  between  the 
waters  that  run  into  the  Pacific  and  those  that  run  into 
the  Atlantic  Ocean. 

If  there  is  any  such  divide,  we  will,  for  convenience, 
call  it  by  the  letter  "M." 

^Report  of  Geologist,  pp.  11,  12. 

^Doctor  Karsten,  1886,  confirms  these  opinions  (Libr.  of 
Congress). 

'Report  of  Geologist,  pp.  11,  12. 

*"  Bedded  variety  from  Cuabre  to  Punta  Mona."  Report  of 
Geologist,  p.  30. 

Supplemental  report  by  Commissioner  Hodgdon,  p.  12. 

^English  Diet.,  by  Isaac  Funk.     Edition,  1906. 

^Geological  map  of  Commission. 


68 


ANSWER. 

I.  It  is  evident  that  a  mountain  chain  does  exist  that 
separates  the  waters  of  the  two  oceans ;  but  it  has  not  been 
fully  localized,  especially  in  the  most  important  section,  of 
45  kilometers,  from  Dome  to  the  peak  marked  "Possibly 
Cerro  Pando."' 

IV. 

(4)  Ascertain  and  report  whether  there  is  a  branch,  sec- 
ondary divide  or  counterfort  of  the  central  chain  or  main 
divide  "M,"  running  from  "M"  toward  Punta  Mona  and 
ending  at  or  near  said  Punta  Mona. 

If  any  such  branch,  secondary  divide  or  counterfort 
exists,  we  will,  for  convenience,  call  it  by  the  letter  "C;" 
and  the  point  of  intersection  of  "M"  and  "C"  we  will, 
for  convenience,  designate  by  the  letter  "I." 

ANSWER. 

1 .  This  question  has  been  answered  negatively  in  every 
particular,  in  the  paragraphs  comprising  the  answer  to  the 
first  question,  based  upon  the  same  citations  there  made 
from  the  report  and  maps  of  the  Commission. 

2,  It  is  not  enough  that  a  line  be  marked  upon  a  map; 
it  is  necessary  and  indeed  indispensable  that  the  line  that  is 
delineated  be  justified,  meeting  each  and  every  one  of  the 
conditions  it  ought  to  have. 

.3.  In  geometry,  for  example,  all  the  elements  of  the 
equation  x^-\-y^  =  r^  represent  a  circumference,  and  any 
element  that  does  not  satisfy  that  equation  cannot  form  a 
part  of  the  circumference  in  question. 

4.  So,  in  the  present  case  under  discussion,  the  line 
asked  for  in  the  question  is  a  crest,  summit  or  divide  line, 

•Report  of  Commission,  pp.  57,  58.     Legend  on  map,  No.  4. 


69 

which,  diverging  from  the  Main  Cordillera,  runs  con- 
tinuously and  uniformly  until  it  ends  at  Punta  Mona,  and 
moreover  it  must  close  upon  the  north  the  basin  of  the 
Sixaola. 

5.  The  report  and  maps  of  the  Commission  show  that 
the  line  therein  described  does  not  meet  the  conditions  that 
have  been  stated.  That  line  is  marked,  moreover,  with 
different  signs  during  its  course,  indicating  a  lack  of  unity 
and  a  different  character  between  one  section  and  another,^ 
and  even  going  so  far  as  to  admit,  with  the  purpose  of 
terminating  at  Punta  Mona: 

(i)  An  imaginary  course,^ 

(2)  An  approximate  course,^ 

(3)  Another  uncertain  course,"*  and  lastly 

(4)  Two  arbitrary  courses.^ 

6.  Not  only  did  the  Commission  begin  the  line  at  a  point 
more  or  less  questionable,  on  account  of  the  uncertainty 
that  it  confesses  itself  does  exist®  in  the  section  between 
Chirripo  Grande  and  Durikaf  not  only  did  it  inter- 
polate a  course  that  it  termed  ".approximate"  and  another 
course  of  nineteen  kilometers  that  is  deemed  "uncertain;" 
but  in  order  to  force  the  line  and  make  it  end  at  Punta 
Mona  it  was  also  compelled,  and  this  against  the  very  data 
that  it  set  forth  and  by  which  alone  the  act  could  be  justi- 
fied, to  cut  low  elevations  and  follow  secondary  depressions. 

^Legend  on  the  Commission  maps. 

^Report  of  the  Commission,  p.  55. 

^"From  the  Coast  to  a  point  at  latitude  9°  33'. 9  and  longitude 
82°  39'. 3."     Report  of  the  Commission,  pp.  53,  54. 

^"  With  the  exception  of  the  short  gap  of  19  kilometers  between 
D-629  and  A-2511."     Report  of  the  Commission,  pp.  54,  57. 

^See  paragraphs  3  and  7  of  answer  to  first  question  and  level 
curves  on  the  maps  clearly  showing  such  arbitrary  character. 

^Report  of  the  Commission,  p.  57. 

^Chirripo  Grande  is  the  starting  point,  according  to  the  maps. 


70 

This  was  done,  as  we  observe,  from  Buena  Vista,  at  Sta- 
tion A-22I,  and  further  on  at  the  point  82°  40'  5"  west  of 
Greenwich  and  9°  36'  00",  where  arbitrarily,  without  being 
justified  by  any  document,  two  tracings  were  made  for  the 
purpose  of  continuing  the  desired  divide  line-^  and  yet 
notwithstanding  all  these  irregularities,  any  one  of  which 
would  be  enough  of  itself  to  destroy  the  concept  of  a  con- 
tinuous contrefort  (spur)  between  Punta  Mona  and  the 
Cordillera,  it  was  not  possible  to  make  it  end  at  the  ter- 
minus desired,  except  by  means  of  an  arbitrary  and  hypo- 
thetical line,  imaginary  and  invisible! 

V. 

(5)  Ascertain  and  report  the  approximate  latitude  and 
longitude  of  the  point  "I,"  at  which  the  divide  " C "  inter- 
sects the  main  divide  "M;"  also  the  approximate  latitude 
and  longitude  of  Pico  Blanco  and  Cerro  Pando. 

ANSWER. 

1.  The  point  arbitrarily -designated  by  the  Commission 
for  the  start  of  the  supposed  divide  which  should  end  near 
Grape  Point,  was  the  peak  of  Chirripo  Grande,  situated 
at  83°  29'  38"  west  of  Greenwich  and  9°  29'  28"  north 
latitude.^ 

2.  Pico  Blanco  is  situated  at  83°  02'  14"  west  of  Green- 
wich and  9°  16'  39"  north  latitude.' 

3.  Cerro  Pando  (the  peak  of  Pando),  uncertainly  located 
according  to  the  statement  of  the  Commission  in  its  report 
(P-  59)  >  is  at  82°  49'.!  west  of  Greenwich  and  9°  02 '.5 
north  latitude. 

'Report  of  Engineer  Smith,  Appendix  No.  3,  p.  11. 
^Report  of  the  Commission,  p.  59. 
^Idem,  p.  59. 


71 

4-  Pico  Blanco  does  not  belong  to  the  divide  but  is  found 
upon  the  Atlantic  slope. ^ 

VI. 

(6)  Make  a  general  topographical  survey  and  plan  of 
the  main  divide  "M"  from  Cerro  Pando,  near  parallel  9*^ 
north  of  the  equator,  to  the  point  "  I "  at  which  begins  the 
branch,  secondary  divide  or  counterfort  "C,"  which  runs 
toward  and  ends  at  or  near  Punta  Mona. 

Locate  the  main  peaks  of  "M"  between  Cerro  Pando 
and  "I." 

ANSWER. 

1.  The  line  is  uncertain  from  Chirripo  Grande  as  far  as 
Durika.^ 

2.  From  Durika  to  Dome  it  appears  to  be  localized,* 
but  from  Dome,  the  situation  of  which  is  83°  07'  15"  west 
of  Greenwich  and  9°  02'  30"  north  latitude,  the  line  is  once 
more  uncertain,  as  far  as  the  peak  which  the  Commission 
refers  to  as  "  Possibly  Cerro  Pando,"  at  longitude  82°  49'.! 
and  9°  02 '.5  north  latitude,*  over  a  distance  of  45  kilo- 
meters.^ 

VII. 

(7)  Make  a  topographical  survey  and  plan  of  the  divide 
"C"  which  limits  the  drainage  area  of  the  River  Tarire, 
Teliri,  Telidi  or  Sixaola  on  the  northern  side  of  this  river; 
this  survey  and  topographical  plan  to  extend  from  the 
central  ridge  or  main  divide  "M"  down  to  the  sea  at  or 
near  Punta  Mona. 

^Report  of  the  Commission,  p.  58. 
^Report  of  the  Commission,  p.  57. 
^Legend  map  no.  i ,  sheet  No.  i ;  and  report  of  the  Commission, 

PP-  57,  58. 
*Map  No.  4. 
^See  Map  No.  4. 


72 


ANSWER. 


1.  The  Commission  has  traced  upon  the  maps  the  line 
that  separates,  at  times,  not  always,'  the  basin  of  the 
Sixaola  and  Telire  from  others  situated  to  the  west,  but 
according  to  its  own  statement-  between  Stations  D-629 
and  A- 25 1 1  the  line  is  uncertain. 

2.  As  there  must  necessarily  be  a  continuous  line,  sepa- 
rating the  basin  of  the  Sixaola  from  the  others  that  remain 
to  the  north  and  to  the  west,  and  the  line  the  Commission 
has  traced,  as  it  states  in  its  report  separates  its  basin 
sometimes,  not  always,  from  those  of  the  others,  it  is 
evident  that  the  line  traced  upon  the  maps  has  no  relation 
to  the  one  that  is  being  discussed. 

3.  There  may  be  repeated  here  what  was  said  in  that 
respect  in  the  answer  to  Question  VI,  and  so  far  as  appli- 
cable the  paragraphs  in  the  response  to  Question  I. 

VIII. 
(8)  Make  a  topographical  survey  and  plan  of  the  course 
of  the  River  Tarire,  Teriri,  Telidi  or  Sixaola,  from  the 
main  divide  "M"  down  to  its  mouth  on  the  Atlantic 
Ocean;  and  locate  the  points  of  junction  of  said  river 
with  its  main  affluents  on  either  side  of  the  said  river 
Tarire,  Teriri,  Telidi  or  Sixaola. 

ANSWER. 

I.  The  maps  of  the  Commission  delineate  the  entire 
course  of  the  Rivers  Sixaola  and  Telire.  Some  tributaries 
appear  without  names,  but  it  is  easy  to  recognize  them. 

2  These  tributaries  or  affluents  have  their  independent 
valleys,  according  to  the  specific  text  of  the  report  of  the 

'Report  of  the  Commission,  p.  5. 
"Idem,  p.  54. 


73 

Commission,^  and  do  not  form  a  part  of  the  Sixaola 
and  Telire  Valleys.^ 

3.  Here,  then,  is  the  proper  place  to  state  a  new  phase 
of  the  whole  question. 

If,  as  claimed,  both  the  valleys  of  the  tributaries  upon 
the  left  side  of  the  Telire  and  Sixaola,^  as  well  as  those 
of  the  rivers  that  empty  directly  into  the  ocean,^  ought  to 
be  included  or  incorporated  in  the  Sixaola  Valley; 

If,  as  the  Report  of  the  Geologist  says,  the  higher  land 
of  Punta  Mona  ought  to  be  a  part  of  the  same  geological 
unit  as  the  Buena  Vista  divide,^  when  he  says : 

"The  Sixaola  Valley  proper  is  the  large  geological 
unit  and  it  extends  out  of  the  Crest  of  the  Buena 
Vista  Divide,  and  to  the  higher  land  of  Punta  Mona:"* 

If  the  whole  of  the  basin  now  foreign  to  that  of  the 
Sixaola  and  Telire,  which  encloses  the  high  and  low  lands 
of  Gadokan,  Punta  Mona,  Manzanillo  and  as  far  as 
Grape  Point,  because  Swamp  A  reaches  that  far,^  must 
be  understood  as  the  Sixaola  and  Telire  basin. 

Then,  it  is  clear  that  the  real,  geographical,  only  and  un- 
questionable divide,  and  the  one  that  accommodates  itself 
to  these  strange  conclusions  is  the  one  that  starts  from  Buena 
Vista,  at  Station  A-221  and  runs  to  Codes  Point  and  which 
the  Commission  abandoned  and  disregarded  in  order  to  go 
back  and  follow,  as  has  already  been  explained,  in  an  arbi- 
trary and  contradictory  way,  according  to  the  tenor  of  its 
own  statement,  from  BuenaVista,  a  divide  that  divides  the 
waters  of  the  same  River  Sixaola. 

^Report  of  the  Commission,  pp.  50,  51. 

^Archibald  Geikie,  p.  179,  is  also  in  accord  with  this  principle. 

^Report  of  the  Commission,  p.  50. 

'^Idem,  p.  50,  51. 

^Report  of  the  Geologist,  p.  22. 

^Idem,  p.  25. 

^Report  of  the  Commission,  pp.  29,  30,  51,  56. 


74 

4-  We  are  led  to  this  inexorable  conclusion  by  the 
condensation  in  the  foregoing  paragraph  of  the  various 
opinions  in  that  respect  stated  by  the  Commission. 

5.  And  in  that  divide  the  climax  is  reached,  making  it 
end  by  an  imaginary  straight  line  across  a  swamp,  at 
sea  level,  frequently  inundated,  where  no  divide  had  ever 
existed,  nor  any  signs  of  being  able  to  trace  one,  in  a  marsh 
which  neither  the  Commission,  nor  its  Assistant  Engineers, 
nor  even  its  laborers  were  able  to  cross.* 

6.  It  would,  therefore,  seem  to  be  more  logical,  inas- 
much as  it  is  claimed  that  the  basin  of  the  Watzi  forms 
a  part  of  the  valley  of  the  Sixaola,  that  the  divide  should 
proceed  closing  also  the  north  side  of  said  Watzi  Basin, 
and  continue  by  the  divide  that  terminates  at  the  coast. 

IX. 

(9)  Make  a  topographical  survey  and  plan  of  the  terri- 
tory lying  between  the  River  Tarire,  Teriri,  Telidi  or 
Sixaola  and  the  divide  "C." 

It  is  sufficient  to  indicate  the  most  important  points 
of  this  territory. 

ANSWER. 

1.  For  the  series  of  reasons  stated  by  the  Commission, 
already  indicated,  the  topography  of  this  territory  remains 
uncertain. - 

2.  It  would  be  necessary  to  have  the  data  indicated  by 
the  Commission  as  doubtful,  uncertain  and  approximate, 
given  their  proper  value  and  situation  for  the  topography 
requested  to  be  correct. 

'See  chapter  VI. 

-Report  of  the  Commission,  pp.  49,  57. 


75 

3-  The  data  introduced  of  a  hypothetical  character 
would  have  to  be  excluded  and  those  of  an  arbitrary 
nature  abandoned. 

X. 

(lo)  Ascertain  and  report  whether  the  valley  of  the 
Sixaola  or  Tarire  River  is  closed  on  the  north  by  a  divide, 
counterfort  or  branch  of  the  main  divide  "M." 

ANSWER. 

1.  In  conformity  with  the  scientific  definition  of  the 
word  "valley,"  as  established  by  the  Commission,' 
"  *  *  *  ,  that  is  to  say,  the  topography  is  to  indi- 
cate the  break  between  the  hills  and  the  plain,"  the  Valley 
of  the  Sixaola  is  not  closed  by  the  divide  that  encloses 
its  basin. 

2.  The  line  that  closes  the  Valleys  of  the  Sixaola  and 
Telire  upon  the  north  has  been  traced,  using  the  data  fur- 
nished by  the  maps  of  the  Commission  and  its  own  reports 
in  respect  to  the  point  where  the  valley  is  restricted  to  the 
very  bed  of  the  stream,  as  is  the  case  at  Piedra  Grande.^ 

3.  In  Cuabre  "  *  *  *  a  narrow  strip  of  flat  land 
lies  between  the  hill  and  the  river.  "  The  valley  is  so 
narrow  here  that  the  Commission  did  not  undertake  to 
designate  it  by  its  name,  but  called  it  "*  *  *  a  narrow 
strip  of  land." 

4.  The  most  conclusive  statement  in  regard  to  the  Sixaola 
Valley  is  that  made  by  the  Commission  in  its  report  (p.  52, 
top) : 

"In  some  places  the  banks  are  so  steep  that  exten- 
sive slides  are  taking  place ;  and  in  one  place,  south  of 


'Report  of  the  Commission,  p.  28.      Hodgdon  report,  p.  6. 
-Report  of  the  Geologist,  p.  31. 


76 

Cerro  Doble,  it  is  known  that  such  sHdes  temporarily 
dam  the  river  until  the  water  by  accumulation 
behind  it  creates  sufficient  power  to  cut  its  way 
through  the  slides." 

XI. 

(ii)  Ascertain  and  report  whether  said  counterfort  or 
branch  of  the  main  divide  "M"  has  several  sub-branches  or 
spurs,  running  approximately  from  northwest  to  south- 
east ;  and  whether  one  of  these  ends  near  the  Sixaola  River, 
opposite  or  nearly  opposite  the  mouth  of  the  Yurquin. 

ANSWER. 

I.  From  the  ridge  that  borders  the  bed  of  the  Sixaola 
upon  its  north  side,  in  front  of  the  mouth  of  the  Yorkin,  a 
prominent  and  irregular  elevation  extends  that  runs  first 
to  the  north,  afterward  to  the  west  and  then  to  the  north 
again  and  reaches  the  crest  of  the  basin  of  the  Sixaola.' 

XII. 
(12)  Is  it  a  fact,  or  not,  that  all  the  territory  com- 
prised between  the  left  bank  of  the  mouth  of  the  River 
Sixaola  in  the  Atlantic  Ocean  and  Punta  Mona,  inclusive, 
as  well  as  that  which  extends  toward  the  interior  for  many 
miles  distance,  forming  part  of  the  delta  of  said  river,  is 
made  up  of  sedimentary  matter  carried  by  fluvial  action, 
and  presents  a  level  area,  low  and  in  many  places  marshy? 

ANSWER. 

1.  The  maps  of  the  Commission  answer  all  the  points 
in  this  question  in  the  affirmative. 

2.  The  Report  of  the  Commission  corroborates  them  by 
saying:  (p.  29). 

•Report  of  the  Commission,  p.  52, 


77 

"In  practically  every  case  that  flat  ground  extend- 
ing toward  the  Sixaola  River  from  the  lowest  contour 
shown  on  the  map  is  marshy,  except  where  the  land  is 
cultivated  and  has  been  drained." 

3.  The  swamp  of  Punta  Mona  extends  beyond  Manzan- 
illo,  as  far  as  Grape  Point. ^ 

XIII. 

(13)  Is  it  a  fact,  or  not,  that  the  principal  elevation  of 
land  existing  at  the  said  Punta  Mona,  washed  in  part  by 
the  waters  of  the  sea,  is  found  to  be  separated  from  the 
remainder  of  the  area  of  said  delta  by  a  deep  and  per- 
manent morass,  of  some  miles  in  width,  which  isolates  it 
completely  from  the  rest  of  the  delta  mentioned  ? 

ANSWER. 

1.  The  maps  as  well  as  the  Report  of  the  Commission 
(p.  51)  establish  the  fact  that  Punta  Mona  is  separated 
from  the  rest  of  the  mainland  by  the  swamp  of  some  two 
kilometers  in  width. 

2.  In  periods  of  high  water  this  swamp  is  inundated 
{ibid,  p.  51). 

XIV. 

(14)  Is  it  a  fact,  or  not,  that  said  small  elevation  of  land 
of  Punta  Mona  is  of  recent  geological  formation,  made  up 
of  a  prodigious  growth  of  coral  rock  upon  the  banks  of 
sand,  and  in  turn  upon  this  coral  rock  by  the  deposit  of 
clay  and  yellow  dirt  which  have  formed  the  rocks  that  are 
found  all  along  the  littoral  of  the  Sea  of  the  Antilles,  and 
which  Professor  Gabb,  of  Philadelphia,  has  designated  by 
the  special  name  of  " Antillita"  (Little  Antilla)? 

^Report  of  the  Commission,  p.  30. 


78 


ANSWER. 


1.  The  Geologist  reports  that  the  ground  at  Punta 
Mona  is  of  the  same  character  as  that  found  upon  the 
other  side  of  the  Swamp  A.^ 

2.  Although  the  Commissioner,  Mr.  Hodgdon,  does  not 
describe  this  ground  and  refers  to  the  opinion  of  the 
Geologist,  it  appears: 

(a)  That  the  Geologist  did  not  visit  Punta  Mona  per- 
sonally,^ because  Punta  Mona,  according  to  his  own  map, 
which  he  presents  on  a  scale  of  i  :  40,000,  is  located 
at  82°  37'  30"  west  longitude  from  Greenwich,  and  his 
personal  investigations  began  at  meridian  82°  38'  west  of 
Greenwich,  leaving  the  whole  of  the  territory  between  the 
mouth  of  the  Sixaola,  82°  34'  50"  west  of  Greenwich  and 
half  of  a  maritime  mile  farther  to  the  west  than  Punta 
Mona  outside  of  his  personal  examination;  or,  that  is  to 
say,  a  distance  embraced  between  the  meridians  of  82° 
34'  50"  and  82°  38',  which  is  equivalent  to  5,852  meters; 
and 

(b)  That  admitting  what  the  Geologist  says  in  respect 
to  the  ground  of  Punta  Mona,  the  result  is  that  from  some 
distance  above  Cuabre  toward  the  Caribbean  Sea,  the 
region  is  part  of  what  was  comprised  in  the  coastal  plains 
of  the  Caribbean,^  and  to  corroborate  this,  the  Geologist 
added : 

"The  oceanward  fringe  of  these  coastal  plains  con- 
sists in  many  places  of  extensive  black  mud  swamps 
and  swampy  coral  flats."* 

'Supplemental  Report  by  Commissioner  Hodgdon,  p.  10. 
^Report  of  the  Geologist,  p.  9,  section  A. 
^Report  of  the  Geologist,  p.  9,  section  B. 
*Idem,  p.  9. 


79 

3-  Gabb  designates  these  lands  by  the  name  of  "  Antil- 
lita,"  not  "Little  Antilla,"  but  as  lands  belonging  to  the 
whole  of  the  coasts  of  the  mainland,  like  the  islands  of  the 
Sea  of  the  Antilles. 

4.  The  hypothesis  of  the  Geologist  in  respect  to  the 
prehistoric  sinking  of  that  region  cannot  be  a  subject  for 
consideration  here  in  view  of  the  facts  he  himself  states. 

XV. 

(15)  Is  it  a  fact,  or  not,  that  the  said  elevation  of  Punta 
Mona  is  only  connected  with  some  hills  of  analogous  char- 
acter, parallel  to  the  coast  and  which  terminate  in  the 
point  called  Manzanillo,  situated  some  four  kilometers 
distant  to  the  west  of  that  point? 

ANSWER. 

1.  Punta  Mona,  with  its  adjacent  hills  that  extend  to 
Manzanillo,  all  consisting  of  coral  rock,  is  found  to  be  con- 
stantly and  always  separated  from  the  rest  of  the  main 
land  by  Swamp  A.  There  is  not  the  slightest  evidence  of 
that  locality  being  the  end  of  any  ridge  or  spur  from  the 
principal  chain  of  mountains  that  divides  the  waters  of  the 
two  oceans. 

2.  The  hypothetical  creation  of  an  end  of  a  spur  or 
counterfort  there,  is  a  fiction  that  leads  to  the  most  extra- 
vagant conclusions. 

3.  The  topography  of  the  ground,  at  least,  does  not 
suggest  it. 

4.  Nor  does  the  character  of  the  ground  permit  its 
supposition.  . 

5.  The  plans  and  the  longitudinal  profile,  especially, 
submitted  by  the  Commission,  afford  the  most  eloquent 
testimony  to  the  truth  of  this  statement. 


80 

6.  The  profile  shows  Piinta  Mona  as  an  island  separated 
from  the  main  land  by  a  flat  swamp,  "at  the  sea  level,"  as 
we  understand,  which  is  impassable  and  is  inundated,  the 
waters  of  the  vSixaola  then  being  confused  with  those  of 
the  Gadokan  and  the  others  of  the  basin  that  discharge 
their  waters  directly  into  the  Atlantic,  and  those  of  the 
Gadokan  with  those  of  the  Sixaola,  according  to  the  posi- 
tive expression  of  the  report. 

XVI. 

(i6)  Is  it  a  fact,  or  not,  that  said  elevation  of  Punta 
Mona  and  the  hills  that  form  its  continuation  to  Man- 
zanillo,  from  the  materials  of  which  it  is  composed,  and 
from  the  absence  of  any  mountain  or  cordillera  from 
which  it  runs  off  or  to  which  it  relates,  does  not  constitute 
a  buttress  or  spur,  but  a  series  of  small,  isolated  hills? 

ANSWER. 

I.  Yes.  The  text  of  this  question  is  answered  in  the 
response  to  the  one  preceding  and  in  the  others  that  relate 
to  the  situation  and  the  character  of  the  ground  consti- 
tuting the  isolated  elevations  of  Punta  Mona  and  Manza- 
nillo. 

XVII. 

(17)  Is  it  a  fact,  or  not,  that  said  hills,  all  lying  between 
Punta  Mona  and  Manzanillo,  inclusive,  are,  like  the  eleva- 
tion of  Punta  Mona,  separated  from  the  rest  of  the  delta 
of  the  River  Sixaola  by  a  barrier  of  impassable  swamps, 
many  miles  in  width? 

ANSWER. 

I.  According  to  the  maps  and  the  Report  of  the  Com- 
mission (p.  51),  Swamp  A,  which  separates  Punta  Mona 
and  Manzanillo  from  the  mainland,  measures  two  kilo- 


81 

meters  in  its  middle  and  average  width.  It  extends 
beyond  Manzanillo  and  reaches  as  far  as  Piinta  Uva 
(Grape  Point).     {Idem,  p.  30.) 

In  times  of  high  water  this  Swamp  A  "is  flooded,"  and 
then  its  width  extends  to  the  last  contour  line  indicated 
upon  the  maps).     {Idem,  p.  51.) 

XVIII. 

(18)  Is  it  a  fact,  or  not,  that  across  the  said  swamps, 
in  the  interior  of  the  delta  of  the  vSixaola,  all  the  elevations 
of  land  that  are  detached  upon  the  left  zone  of  that  river 
are  of  recent  geological  sedimentary  formation,  of  an 
analogous  character  to  that  of  the  hills  of  the  coast,  and 
the  aforesaid  elevations,  from  the  materials  of  which  they 
are  composed  and  the  lack  of  connection  with  Cordilleras 
or  mountains  of  which  they  form  a  continuation,  cannot 
constitute  a  buttress  or  spur? 

ANSWER. 

1.  The  Report  of  the  Engineer  of  Party  A,  Mr.  Weak- 
land,  asserts  that  being  located  personally  at  Station  6, 
which  was  a  point  between  Middle  Creek  and  Manzanillo, 
all  the  elevations  surrounding  it  in  every  direction  of  the 
compass  are  of  coral  formation.^ 

2.  Such  ground  is  entirely  distinct  from  that  constitut- 
ing the  central  mass  {massif),  which  is  composed  of  basic 
rocks,  as  the  Geologist  terms  them;  that  is,  having  a 
crystalline  structure." 

3.  The  different  nature  of  the  two  grounds,  which  the 
same  Geologist  separates  into  three  physiographic  unities, 
a  subdivision  that  is  not  new  to  one  who  has  read  the 


^Appendix  No.  3,  report  of  Mr.  Weakland,  p.  2. 
^Report  of  the  Geologist,  pp.  11  and  12. 


82 

work  entitled:  "Rivers  of  North  America,"  by  Israel  C. 
Russell,  Professor  of  Geology  in  the  University  of  Michigan 
(1898,  p.  97;  Chap.  V;  "vStream  Deposits"),  shows  that 
the  hills  of  Punta  Mona  bear  no  relation  to  the  Main 
Cordillera,  or  to  the  spurs  or  counterforts  (buttresses) 
attached  thereto. 


CHAPTKRjV. 

THE  STARTING  POINT,  UPON  THE  MAPS  OF  THE 
COMMISSION,OFTHE  SUPPOSED  DIVIDE,  MARKED 
WITH  TWO  BLACK  CONTINUOUS  AND  PARALLEL 
LINES. 

I .  The  maps  and  reports  of  the  Commission  have  been 
examined  very  carefully  and  at  length,  in  relation  to  the 
starting  point  of  a  supposed  divide,  marked  by  two 
continuous  and  parallel  lines,  designated  upon  the  maps 
by  the  legend:  "Divide  which  is  the  north  limit  of  the  area 
which  drains  into  the  Atlantic  further  south  than  Punta 
Mono.''  This,  it  may  be  remarked  in  passing,  as  its  very 
name  indicates,  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  question  under 
discussion  in  this  controversy  and  no  sort  of  a  basis  for  the 
tracing  of  any  such  line  having  been  found  in  the  maps  and 
reports,  an  application  was  made  at  the  office  of  the  Com- 
mission for  the  field  notes  of  Party  A,  and  also  for  the  map 
submitted  by  the  Representative  of  Panama  to  said  Com- 
mission, without  any  title,  but  bearing  at  the  bottom  a 
note  which  (translated)  reads  as  follows: 

"Note. — The  line indicates  the   summit 

of  the  Cordillera  that  runs  from  Los  Andes  to  Punta 
deMonos  or  Punta  Carreta.  This  ridge  is  the  boundary 
between  Panama  and  Costa  Rica,  according  to  the 
Award  of  M.  Loubet. 

"(Signed)         ABEL  BRAVO,  C.  E. 
"Panama.      December,    1910.      Scale,    i  :  40,000." 

The  field  books  for  this  section  are  twenty-five  in 
number.  In  the  first  of  these,  referring  to  the  survey 
from  Cuabre  to  Punta  Mona,  it  does  not  appear  that  the 

(83) 


84 

engineer  made  any  note  or  marked  any  stake  of  deviation 
from  the  principal  line  that  was  run. 

2.  In  the  field  book  "3-A,"  there  is  found  repeatedly, 
as  may  be  noticed  among  other  pages,  in  No.  2 1 ,  the  note : 
'' Bravo' s  line;"  and  the  divide  marked  in  one  of  the 
sketches  of  the  engineer  indicates  Station  A-9Q9  as  the 
point  of  a  branching  off,  where  the  divide  of  the  basin 
of  the  Sixaola  was  abandoned  in  order  to  follow  another 
and  different  one. 

3.  The  result  is,  therefore,  that  in  the  documents  sub- 
mitted nothing  is  to  be  found  but  the  note  placed  by  the 
Commission  upon  the  maps  in  order  to  designate  that 
"divide,"  foreign  to  the  subject,  and  among  the  reference 
papers  there  is  no  justification  whatever  for  the  starting 
point  of  that  extraneous  divide. 

4.  On  the  contrary,  an  examination  of  the  Plate  No.  Ill, 
which  is  annexed,  shows  that  the  offshoots  which  were 
traced  from  the  Sixaola  divide  and  which  were  abandoned 
at  Stations  793,  823,  894,  1126,  11 16,  1150,  1162,  1200, 
1 191  and  1223,  had  just  as  good  or  a  better  right  to  be 
continued  to  their  ending  as  the  one  that  was  followed 
from  12 12,  in  an  easterly  direction,  and  from  that  same 
Station  1212  there  was  just  as  good  or  a  better  reason 
for  continuing  the  Stations  1237  to  1239,  and  that  of 
1263,  which  was  also  abandoned  at  1285  to  proceed  toward 
1342,  and  from  thence  traverse  the  swamp  and  reach 
Punta  Mona,  but  still  leaving  from  1342,  the  Hne  which  is 
examined,  to  1690  and  from  thence  to  1625,  at  the  mouth 
of  Middle  Creek  upon  the  Atlantic  Ocean. 

5.  All  these  lines  were  abandoned  in  order  to  follow 
arbitrarily  the  offshoot  which  was  begun  from  the  Sixaola 
divide  at  Station  909,  and  which  only  appears  upon  the 
Bravo  Map  as  prolonged  to  Punta  Mona,  and  coincides 


85 

exactly  in  distance  and  direction  with  the  one  that  the 
Commission  adopted  from  among  all  the  others. 

6.  In  order  to  justify  that  line  which  was  adopted,  it 
would  have  been  necessary  to  terminate  those  that  were 
abandoned,  and  evidence  it  in  that  way. 

7.  But  it  appears  that  the  line  which  was  left  at  1342, 
for  the  purpose  of  running  to  Punta  Mona,  was  continued 
to  the  coast  and  ended  at  Station  1625  at  the  mouth  of 
Middle  Creek,  the  result  being  that  the  line  that  was 
adopted  was  by  this  very  fact  divested  of  any  authority 
and  left  resting  alone  upon  the  line  drawn  by  Panama. 

8.  It  may  very  well  be  that  the  Commission  should 
have  had  before  it  such  Panamanian  documents,  in  such 
case,  however,  being  restricted  in  their  use  to  their  verifi- 
cation by  its  own  investigations;  but  to  set  aside  its  own 
examinations  in  order  to  substitute  therefor  such  one- 
sided data  can  not  be  admissible. 

9.  The  minute  details  collected  by  the  Commission  of 
all  that  was  observed  in  the  field,  as  well  as  the  office 
calculations,  for  all  the  sketches  and  pencil  figures  were 
turned  in,  leaves  no  room  for  doubt  that  all  the  lines  cited 
were  abandoned  for  the  purpose  of  following  the  one 
marked  by  Panama  upon  its  maps.  This  assertion  is 
confirmed  by  the  last  paragraph,  in  the  form  of  a  protest, 
which  an  engineer  of  the  Commission,  Mr.  Ashmcad, 
introduced  at  the  close  of  the  Commission's  report: 

"I  take  exception  to  Appendix  No.  3,  in  that  in  it 
is  not  included  certain  information  from  the  Assistant 
Engineers  which  should  be  included  therein."^ 

10.  But  all  that  has  been  alleged  is  further  corroborated 
by  the  fundamental  declaration  of  the   Engineer,   Mr. 

^Report  of  the  Commission,  p.  65. 


86 

Ashmead,  in  his  Supplemental  Report  (p.  24),  where  he 
expresses  the  surprise  that  he  felt  to  see  placed  upon  the 
final  maps  the  line  across  Swamp  A — 

"*  *  *  which  was  arbitrarily  drawn  on  the  final 
maps  during  their  construction  under  the  supervision 
of  the  Chairman  of  the  Commission."' 

11.  Such  a  declaration,  laid  before  the  other  three 
Commissioners,  so  fundamental  in  its  nature  both  in  form 
and  substance,  if  it  had  not  been  well  founded,  would 
have  given  rise  to  some  specific  justification  on  the  part 
of  the  other  three  members.  No  document,  however, 
appears  that  questions  the  allegation  made  by  Mr. 
Ashmead,  neither  does  there  appear  to  be  any  justification 
for  tracing  the  arbitrary  and  hypothetical  line,  nor  for 
drawing  the  line  from  the  place  this  one  begins  at,  but  it 
is  just  a  copy  of  the  line  laid  down  by  Panama. 

12.  Now  it  can  be  stated  that  it  was  this  very  reason 
and  none  other  that  led  to  the  tracing  of  the  "divide" 
to  which  reference  was  made  in  the  answer  to  "Ques- 
tion IV"  (Chapter  IV  of  this  paper),  where  it  was 
shown  by  data  furnished  by  the  Commission  itself  that 
such  line  was  traced  with  courses  that  were  fundamentally 
uncertain  and  imaginary. 

13.  For,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  nothing  more  is  needed 
than  to  lay  the  tracing  of  the  line  by  Sefior  Bravo,  drawn 
to  the  same  scale  as  that  of  the  map  of  the  Commis- 
sion, over  that  map,  in  order  to  note  the  coincidence 
of  the  two  lines  throughout  almost  the  whole  of  their 
extent.  That  is  to  say,  a  document  which  it  is  sought 
to  have  appear  as  an  original,  is  really  nothing  more  than 
a  copy  of  a  map  furnished  by  one  of  the  parties. 

14.  The  foregoing  analysis,  however,  seems  almost  need- 

^  Report  of  the  Commission,  p.  53,  par.  2. 


87 

less  in  the  face  of  the  manifest  proof  furnished  by  the 
Commission  itself  as  to  the  fact  that  is  alleged.  In  giving 
instructions  to  the  Chief  Engineer  of  Party  A,  it  was 
distinctly  said: 

"Eastward  along  the  River  Sixaola  to  its  mouth, 
securing  only  such  detailed  information  as  .shall  be 
necessary  to  check  the  general  direction  and  main  bends 
of  the  river  as  shown  in  existing  maps."^ 

But  judging  by  the  results  it  would  seem  as  if  the  Com- 
mission must  have  said:  "*  *  *  and  the  bends  of  the 
divide  as  shown  upon  the  map  of  Seiior  Bravo. "^ 

The  Commission  stated  that  it  had  in  its  possession 
and  it  turned  over  the  following  maps:^ 

1.  Map  of  the  Atlantic  Coast  of  Costa  Rica,  from 
Old  Harbour  to  Almirante  Bay.  Scale,  i  :  40,000,  in 
which  are  shown  farms  and  railroads  of  the  U.  F.  C. 

2.  Mapa  Geologico  de  Talamanca  (Geological  Map 
of  Talamanca),  by  Wm.  M.  Gabb.     1873. 

3.  Paper  tracing:  Bravo's  Map  of  North  Divide, 
December,  1910.     Scale,  i  :  40,000."* 

4.  McCrone's  Compiled  Map. 

5.  Blueprint  Map  of  Punta  Mona,  Carreta;  by 
Matamoros.     Scale,  i  :  5,000. 

6.  Map  of  Costa  Rica,  prepared  by  the  Inter- 
national Bureau  of  American  Republics.  1903. 
Scale,  I  :  792,000. 

7.  Tracing  of  Matamoros'  Map,  Plan  of  the  Sixaola. 
Scale   I  :  40,000. 

8.  Petermann's  Map  of  Costa  Rica.  vScale,  i  : 
600,000. 

9.  Map  of  Costa  Rica,  by  H.  Pittier.     1903. 

^Report  of  the  Commission,  p.  27,  par.  2. 

^See  Item  3  of  the  appended  list. 

^Contents  of  Box  No.  104. 

*The  Commission  here  creates  this  title  for  Bravo's  Map  and 
thereby  admits  it  to  be  of  the  North  Divide,  whereas  the  map 
shows  only  a  line  marked  thus  (translation):  "Cordillera  boun- 
dary from  Punta  Mona  or  Punta  Carreta." 


88 

There  were  some  other  blueprints  and  reduced  tracings, 
but  among  all  these  enumerated  in  this  list,  the  Bravo 
Map  alone,  which  was  the  one  prepared  by  Panama,  had 
the  supposed  divide  delineated,  under  the  following  title 
(translation) : 

"Cordillera  boundary  from  Punta  Mona  or  Punta 
Carreta." 

And  at  the  bottom  of  the  map  it  stated  (translation) : 

"Note. — The  line indicates  the  summit 

of  the  Cordillera  that  runs  from  Los  Andes  to  Punta 
de  Monos  or  Punta  Carreta.  This  ridge  is  the 
boundary  between  Panama  and  Costa  Rica,  accord- 
ing to  the  Award  of  M.  Loubet." 

15.  So  that  as  to  this  point  of  vital  importance,  lying 
at  the  very  foundation  of  the  whole  controversy  in  the 
establishment  of  which  the  Commission  had  no  right 
whatever  to  look  to  the  claims  of  either  one  of  the  parties, 
much  less  to  rely  upon  the  data  presented  by  either  of  the 
two  countries;  as  to  this  very  vital  point,  we  repeat  the 
Commission  was  content  and  even  ordered  its  Engineer 
to  check  only  the  data  "as  shown  in  existing  maps:" 
and  as  the  map  of  Panama  was  the  only  one  that  showed 
the  hypothetical  divide,  thereupon  it  was  copied  in  order 
to  comply  with  the  directions  of  the  Commission. 

16.  Panama  had  in  its  possession  the  plans  prepared  by 
Sefior  Bravo  under  the  orders  of  that  Republic,  and  yet 
notwithstanding  that  fact  it  specifically  requested  that 
the  Commission  should  make  a  topographical  examination 
of  the  whole  of  that  region.  It  would  seem,  therefore,  that 
Panama  for  the  moment  at  least  disregarded  its  own  data 
and  sought  for  new  information,  but  in  spite  of  this  the 


89 

Commission  did  no  more  than  to  repeat  upon  its  plans 
the  data  furnished  by  Panama  upon  the  Bravo  Map. 

17.  It  may  be  urged  that  the  result  that  is  given  shows 
that  the  investigations  of  the  Commission  indicated  a 
conformity  with  those  that  had  been  made  by  Panama. 
That  would  be  quite  so,  provided  the  Commission  had 
furnished  records  covering  the  line  offered  by  it  through- 
out its  whole  extent,  but  we  have  proved  that  no  such 
records  exist,  and  gone  even  so  far  as  to  show  by  the 
Commission's  own  report  (p.  27)  that  it  provided,  to 
that  Party  particularly,  to  check  the  existing  maps. 

18.  So,  while  it  was  discussed  in  the  proceedings  of  the 
Commission,  whether  or  not  it  was  best  to  put  into  the 
hands  of  the  Engineers  of  the  different  parties  the  ques- 
tions proposed  by  the  two  countries,  it  was  also  discussed 
whether  or  not  Engineers  of  the  two  countries  should 
accompany  the  Commission;  and  as  to  the  first  point  it 
was  decided  to  deliver  the  questions  .proposed  without 
any  indication  of  their  origin  to  the  Engineers  in  the  field ; 
and  as  to  the  second,  only  to  permit  visits  by  the  engineers 
of  the  two  countries  to  the  surveying  camp ;  but  why  was 
it  not  also  discussed  whether  or  not  the  maps  of  the 
interested  parties  should  be  delivered  to  the  field  engineers? 
It  is  clear  such  a  question  would  have  received  an  absolute 
negative,  in  order  to  secure  a  more  impartial  judgment 
by  the  Commission,  and  yet  while  that  point  was  not 
even  mentioned,  those  maps  not  only  were  in  the  hands 
of  the  Commission  but  also  and  continuously  in  the  hands 
of  the  field  engineers,  so  as  to  reduce  their  work  merely 
to  the  checking  up  of  lines  previously  drawn  and  one- 
sided in  the  controversy. 


90 

19-  The  clearest  evidence  that  the  Panama  map  was 
in  the  hands  of  the  Engineer,  Mr.  Weakland,  who  was 
at  the  head  of  Party  A,  is  found  in  the  correspondence 
of  that  engineer,  under  dates  of  March  lo  and  April  15. 
indicating  that  the  dotted  line,'  having  no  designation 
whatever,  ought  to  be  filled  out  with  the  words  "Bravo's 
Line,"  and  "Bravo's  Map,"  in  conformity  with  what  is 
shown  in  the  original  correspondence  of  that  engineer. 

In  those  letters  are  to  be  found  the. phrases  that  com- 
plete the  mutilated  paragraphs  alluded  to.  It  is  not  for 
us  to  pass  judgment  upon  the  motives  that  led  the  Com- 
mission to  eliminate  those  words  from  the  text,  nor  the 
resultant  consequences  if  they  had  been  included. 

20.  The  foregoing  arguments  have  compelled  us  to  once 
more  look  at  the  various  sections  distinctly  designated 
by  the  Commission  as  "arbitrary,"  "uncertain"  and 
"approximate,"  and  referred  to  in  paragraph  5  of  Chapter 
IV,  in  the  answer  to  Question  IV. 

21.  In  order  to^  follow  the  sequence  in  which  those 
sections  were  given  in  the  Chapter  mentioned,  let  us 
begin  with — 

I.  The  Imaginary  Course. - 

This  begins  at  Punta  Mona,  crosses  Swamp  A  and 
ascending  the  rise  reaches  the  arbitrary  point  9°  36'  40" 
north  latitude  and  82°  39'  00"  longitude  west  of  Green- 
wich, at  an  elevation  of  90  meters;  whence  it  proceeds, 
also  arbitrarily,  to  Station  A- 1239,  a  point  situated 
at  a  height  of  193  meters. 

'See  Appendix,  No.  3,  pp.  i  and  2. 

^Report  of  the  Commission,  p.  55 :  "  *  *  *  if  such  permanent 
divide  exists     *     *     *, " 


91 

22 .  This  course  is  not  a  divide  of  the  valley  or  of  the  basin 
of  the  Sixaola,  and  even  if  it  were  divested  of  its  arbitrary 
and  hypothetical  character,  given  to  it  by  the  Commission, 
it  could  have  no  relation  to  the  matter  now  being  dis- 
cussed, because  it  is  a  divide  that  separates  the  waters 
of  a  basin  foreign  to  that  of  the  Sixaola,  as  it  was 
expressed  by  the  Commission  itself,^  and  as  appears  by 
looking  at  the  maps  upon  which  it  is  marked  by  two  con- 
tinuous black  parallel  and  afterwards  broken  lines. 

II.     Approximate  Course.^ 

23.  The  Commission  avers  that  this  line  "  *  *  *  from 
the  coast  of  a  point  in  latitude  9°  33'. 9  and  longitude 
82°  39'.3  *  *  *," — quoting  its  very  words  in  its  report 
(p-  53) —  is  a  part  of  the  divide  of  the  watershed  of  the 
Sixaola  and  is  the  terminal  thereof  upon  the  coast. '^ 

24.  It  recognizes,  then,  that  this  black  broken  line  is 
a  portion  of  the  divide  that  ends  at  the  coast,  but  not  at 
Punta  Mona,  for  its  own  allegation,  as  we  saw  by  the 
previous  paragraph,  was  that  the  divide  that  ran  to  Punta 
Alona  was  not  the  divide  of  the  Sixaola  watershed. 

Beside,  with  the  purpose  of  justifying  the  fact  that  the 
examination  of  this  portion  of  the  divide  of  the  Sixaola 
was  only  an  approximate  one,  it  made  its  own  the  language 
used  by  the  Engineer  of  Party  A,  who  said : 

"  Please  note  that  the  Gadokan  Creek  was  not  run 
out  entirely  to  its  mouth.  Water  was  very  high  at 
the  time  this  survey  was  made  and  this  creek  empties 
into  a  lagoon  before  entering  the  sea,  so  it  was 
impracticable  to  follow  it  the  entire  distance.     How- 

'Report  of  the  Commission,  p.  55,  par.  2. 
-Report  of  the  Commission,  pp.  53,  54. 
^Report  of  the  Commission;  bottom  of  p.  53. 


92 

ever,  I  walked  over  the  ground  between  the  Creek 
(Gadokan)  and  the  Sixaola  and  satisfied  myself  that 
there  is  no  connection  between  them.' 

25.  In  accordance  with  what  the  Geologist  laid  down,- 
if  we  take  the  average  of  careful  observations  covering  a 
period  of  six  consecutive  years,  from  1906  to  1911,  it 
would  appear  that  the  amount  of  rainfall  in  that  section 
(certainly  one  of  the  nearest  to  the  meteorological  obser- 
vation station)  toward  the  end  of  June,  corresponded  to  the 
general  average  for  the  months  of  June  and  July,  or  say 
11.42  inches,  and  this  figure  is  very  close  to  the  highest 
monthly  average  for  the  six  years  taken. 

26.  The  Commission,  therefore,  had  in  its  possession 
arguments  that  could  not  be  gainsaid  for  not  putting  in 
doubt  the  real  existence  of  that  divide  and  showing  that 
there  was  no  basis  for  the  hypothesis  that  it  was  at  times 
submerged,  for  the  surveys  were  carried  out  in  the  end 
of  June,  and  that  was  the  time  of  high  water  in  that 
locahty;  and  so  if.  under  those  conditions,  the  Engineer 
certified  that  no  connection  existed  between  the  course 
of  the  Gadokan  and  that  of  the  Sixaola,  what  reason  was 
there  for  asserting  that  in  times  of  flood  the  courses  of  the 
two  streams  were  confused? 

27.  The  eloquence  of  these  numeric  facts  destroys  the 
hypothesis  and  proves: 

A. 

28.  That  the  real  divide  does  exist,  marked  by  the 
Commission  upon  its  plans,  from  the  coast  to  the  point 
at  9°  33'  9"  and  82°  39'  3".  Its  starting  point  at  the 
coast  was  situated  at  9°  35'  north  latitude  and  82°  34'  38" 

'See  end  of  letter  dated  June  22,  1912;  Appendix  No.  3,  p.  3. 
^Report  of  Geologist,  p.  14. 


93 

west  longitude  from  Greenwich,  according  to  Map  No.  i, 
vSheet  No.  i,  by  the  Commission. 

B. 

That  this  portion  of  the  divide,  indicated  upon  the 
maps  as  a  broken  Hne  was  traversed  by  the  Engineer 
of  Party  A,  who  certified  that  at  no  point  did  the  waters 
of  the  Sixaola  have  any  connection  with  those  of  the 
Gadokan. 

C. 

That  this  examination  was  made  during  the  period  of 
high  water  in  the  streams  and,  therefore,  is  known  approxi- 
mately only.^ 

D. 

That  in  view  of  the  evidence  furnished  by  the  Geologist 
in  his  report  (p.  14),  the  fact  is  well  settled  that  such 
investigation  was  carried  out  when  there  was  a  maximum 
precipitation  in  that  locality,  and  consequently  there  is  no 
reason  to  suppose  that  this  divide  was  inundated  at  other 
times.  ^ 

III.     Uncertain  Course.'' 

29.  This  uncertain  course  of  the  divide,  according  to 
the  very  words  of  the  Commission  itself,  "  *  *  *  between 
D-629  and  A-43  *     *     *,"■*  was  laid  down  by  means  of 

^Report  of  the  Commission,  p.  54;  ist  and  2d  lines  from  the 
top. 

^See  analytical  demonstration  of  this  fact,  Chap.  VI,  par.  10, 
^Report  of  the  Commission,  pp.  54  and  57. 
^Report  of  the  Commission,  p.  41. 

1559— 8 


94 

"*  *  *  distances  determined  by  the  time  that  elapsed  in 
traversing  them,  directions  by  the  compass  and  eleva- 
tions indicated  by  aneroid  barometers;"  and  although 
the  report  excepts  from  these  conditions  "  *  *  *  a  short 
gap  of  19  kilometers  *  *  *"  (p.  54),  according  to  what 
the  same  report  states  at  another  place  (p.  41),  that 
"short  gap"  starts  at  the  peak  A-43,  which  was  fixed, 
not  by  topographical  means  (a  traverse  line  adopted), 
but  by  trigonometrical  processes  "*  *  *  by  intersections 
from  Party  A's  traverse  line,  a  distance  of  about  18 
kilometers."^ 

30.  By  looking  at  "Party  A's  traverse  line"  any  one 
can  see  that  a  worse  disposition  could  hardly  have  been 
made  in  seeking  to  find  by  means  of  an  intersection  the 
location  of  peak  43-A.  It  is  well  known  that  if  locations 
obtained  by  the  use  of  the  intersection  method  are  to  be 
relied  upon  there  must  be,  in  the  first  place  an  extended 
base,  accurately  measured,  and  in  the  second  place,  the 
extremes  of  the  base  joined  to  the  point  that  is  to  be 
fixed  should  form  as  nearly  as  possible  an  equilateral 
triangle. 

31.  In  the  present  case  none  of  these  conditions 
were  satisfied,  for  "traverse  line  A,"  from  where  it 
would  have  been  possible  to  make  the  most  extended 
observation  of  the  peak  43-A,  did  not  measure  more 
than  5,700  meters  between  the  Stations  A- 2400  and 
A-2511.  The  maximum  base,  therefore,  was  very  short 
and  the  maximum  angle  of  the  apex  which  the  observer 
could  have  obtained  did  not  reach  17°;  that  is  to  say, 
half  of  that  required  by  trigonometry  for  a  proper  opera- 
tion. Assuming  the  base  of  5,700  meters  to  be  correct, 
the  error  in  the  short  distance  from  A-251 1  to  A-43  would 

^Report  of  the  Commission,  p.  41. 


95 

reach,  in  case  there  was  a  variation  of  a  minute  more  or 
less,  some  554  meters,  as  laid  down  by  the  Commission.^ 
If  this  was  the  only  ground  for  uncertainty,  the  Commis- 
sion admits  it;  but  it  further  appears  that  from  A-43, 
left  thus  uncertainly  located,  it  continued  as  we  have 
indicated  over  a  length  of  19  kilometers  as  far  as  Station 
D-629,  and  taking  into  consideration  the  difficulties  met 
with  in  traversing  those  mountains,  it  is  very  evident  that 
the  course  embraced  between  A-43  and  D-629  was  in 
every  way  uncertain.^ 

IV.     Arbitrary  Course. 

32.  We  have  seen  (paragraph  3  of  Answer  to  Question  I, 
Chapter  IV)  that  the  starting  point  of  the  divide  at 
Chirripo  Grande  was  chosen  arbitrarily;  and  likewise 
arbirtary  was  the  selection  of  the  point  at  Buena  Vista 
for  the  divide  to  turn  off  in  a  different  direction  from  that 
indicated  by  the  topography  of  the  locality.  For  such 
deviation  there  was  no  other  reason  than  the  one  pointed 
out  in  the  beginning  of  this  argument  for  the  hypothetical 
and  arbitrary  course,  as  the  Commission  itself  so  desig- 
nates it. 

33.  The  Panama  map  agrees  with  the  original  of  the 
Commission  in  the  location,  distance  and  direction  of  the 
course  marked  by  the  two  continuous  and  parallel  lines, 
from  the  point  of  departure  to  Station  A-1239,  wh^re  it 
follows  the  hypothetical  course  of  the  Commission. 


^Report  of  the  Commission,  end  of  p.  54. 

^To  be  sure  of  this  irregularity,  let  us  look  at  the  original  paper 
No.  A-25,  and  the  distance  for  the  determination  of  the  location 
of  the  peak  A-43  is  found  to  have  only  been  1065.9  meters. 
See  Triang.  Sheet  No.  22.  Consequently  the  approximation 
is  still  less  than  the  base  of  5,700  meters  would  give. 


96 

34-  In  proof  of  all  that  has  been  stated,  reference  is 
made  to  the  accompanying  map,  Plate  No.  V,  submitted  by 
the  Republic  of  Panama,  signed  by  its  Engineer,  Don  Abel 
Bravo,  and  to  the  tracings,  Plate  No.  IV,  that  make  appar- 
ent the  similarity  of  the  line  of  the  Commission  and  of  the 
Panama  map  at  the  point  9°  36'  00"  north  latitude,  and 
82°  40'  46"  longitude  west  of  Greenwich,  which  led  to  this 
examination. 

35.  Aside  from  all  this,  the  reason  is  not  evident  for 
the  marked  and  decided  effort  shown  by  the  Commission 
in  all  the  minor  details  of  its  examinations  and  reports 
to  establish  the  divide  of  the  Sixaola  basin  upon  the  north 
side,  to  the  extreme  that  one  of  the  engineers  in  the  field 
referred  to  it  as  the  "divide  desired,"^  That  line,  without 
any  doubt,  did  constitute  one  of  the  elements  in  the 
problem  that  was  submitted,  but  it  was  no  more  than  a 
simple  datum  and  not  as  the  object. 

36.  The  French  Arbitral  Award,  which  the  Commission 
had  in  its  possession,  had  nothing  whatever  to  say  about 
any  such  divide;  but  it  referred  to  the  line  that  closed 
upon  the  north  the  valley  of  the  Sixaola,  not  the  line  that 
closed  upon  the  north  the  basin  of  the  Sixaola. 

37.  The  Engineers  of  the  Commission  defined  the  valley 
of  the  Sixaola  very  well  when  they  marked  it  as  restricted 
by  high  rocks  and  confined  to  the  course  of  the  river. 

38.  They  should  have  adhered  to  this  view  at  all  times 
and  when  they  had  once  found  the  divide,  continued  to 
use  it  as  a  means  for  determining  the  line  of  the  valley, 
that  being  the  object  of  their  mission. 

^F.  Smith,  Appendix  No.  3,  p.  11. 


97 

39-  In  no  part  of  the  report  or  upon  the  maps  was  that 
line  treated,  but  only  the  divide,  although  they  are  entirely 
distinct. 

40.  That  is  the  reason  why  the  line,  to  which  we  refer, 
has  been  traced,  supported  by  the  reports  and  maps  of 
the  Commission. 


CHAPTER  VI. 


BASES  OF  SOME  POINTS  DISCUSSED   IN  THE  PRE- 
CEDING CHAPTER. 

1.  The  foregoing  examination  seems  to  pass  rather 
hastily  over  the  points  that  were  brought  out  therein, 
although  the  maps  and  reports  of  the  Commission — in 
the  form  they  have  been  submitted — afford  no  room  for 
doubt  as  to  the  veracity  of  our  statements.  It  is  evident 
that  such  maps  were  prepared,  not  only  with  the  data 
obtained  upon  the  ground,  but  also  by  the  use  of  existing 
maps,  Hke  that  of  the  coast  between  the  mouth  of  the 
Sixaola  and  Punta  Mona  and  others  that  will  be  cited. 

The  present  chapter  has  been  written  to  substantiate 
still  further  the  various  parts  of  that  examination. 

2.  This  seems  to  be  the  proper  place  to  show  that  the 
plans  of  the  Commission  were  not  justified  by  themselves, 
nor  by  the  report  that  accompanied  them.  Both  of  the 
parties  to  the  controversy  had  in  their  possession  maps 
of  this  region,  and  among  others,  the  map  of  Wm.  Gabb 
( 1 877-1 878),  prepared  upon  the  order  and  for  the  account 
of  the  Government  of  Costa  Rica,  upon  which  all  the 
others  that  have  been  made  since  were  based.  But  what 
was  needed  was  not  maps,  according  to  the  literal  text 
of  the  petitions  of  the  two  parties,  but  it  was  plans  with 
the  proper  accompanying  documents  to  show  the  hnes 
which  were  run  and  examined  ("Traverse  Lines"),  as 
provided  in  Paragraph  (c),  page  13  of  the  Report  of  the 
Commission,  and  as  is  customary  in  all  topographical 
maps. 

3.  If  these  conditions  were  to  have  been  put  into  prac- 
tice it  is  evident  that  the  phrase  to  be  found   in   the 

(98) 


99 

Commission's  Report  (p.  27):  "A  continuous  survey  from 
Cuabre  to  Punta  Mona  was  completed  on  April  26,"  was 
not  correct,  because  from  the  very  moment  that  the  por- 
tion of  the  coast  lying  between  the  mouth  of  the  Sixaola 
and  Punta  Mona  was  taken  from  the  "  Hydro  graphic 
Office  Chart,  No.  945,"^  and  used  in  order  to  connect  the 
Punta  Mona  section  with  the  territory  separated  from  it 
by  Swamp  A,  there  was  no  "continuous  survey"  made. 

4.  What  the  Commission  termed  a  "continuous  survey 
from  Cuabre  to  Punta  Mona,"  was  the  one  it  showed  upon 
its  maps;  that  is  to  say,  the  course  marked  by  a  black 
cursive  line,  which  continued,  marked  by  two  black  par- 
allel and  continuous  lines,  and  the  one  that  at  the  end 
of  the  latter  proceeded  by  two  parallel  broken  lines 
and  terminated  at  Punta  Mona.  Our  argument  goes  no 
further  than  to  prove  that  such  line  was  not  a  "contin- 
uous" one. 

5.  Without  prejudice  to  the  analysis  that  follows  for 
the  purpose  of  establishing  the  foregoing  proposition,  it 
will  be  stated  that  from  Station  A- 1625  (Mouth  of  Middle 
Creek),  Party  A  ran  a  "traverse  line"  which  localized 
the  course  of  1,300  meters  as  far  as  Station  A- 1686,  which 
does  not  appear  to  be  drawn  upon  the  map,  but  which 
began  at  a  point  situated  at  82°  37'  38"  west  longitude 
and  9°  36'  32"  north  latitude.  This  belongs  in  Map  No. 
2,  Sheet  No.  i,  exactly  where  a  black  dot  is  placed  over 
the  letter  "r"  in  the  word  "Trail,"  west  of  a  bend  in 
Middle  Creek;  and  from  this  point  A- 1686  the  survey  con- 
tinued along  the  ramification  whence  the  ' '  arbitrary  and 
hypothetical  divide"  was  taken  off. 

6.  lyCt  us  look  at  the  fundamental  facts. 

Party  A  followed  the  course  that  started  at  Station 
A- 1 239,  in  an  easterly  direction,  some  degrees  southerly, 

^See  map  No.  2,  sheet  No.  i. 


100 


and  which  continued  along  the  summits  indicated  by  the 
natural  topography  of  the  ground  and  the  elevations  of 
which  are  recorded  as  follows: 

Station  A-1239,  notebook  No.  3-A. 

Station  A- 1283  to  A- 1263,  pp.  145  to  151. 
and  for  the  continuation  of  the  Une : 

No.  5-A,  from  A-1621  to  A- 1644,  pp.  43  to  51. 

No.  4- A,  from  A- 1645  to  A- 1675,  pp.  147  to  157. 

No.  6-A,  from  A-1675  to  A-1679,  P-  ^^• 

No.  6-A,  from  A-1679  to  A- 17 19,  pp.  23  to  35. 

There  was  included  in  these,  the  Station  A-1626,  close 
to  the  mouth  of  Middle  Creek  where  it  enters  the  ocean. 
At  the  foot  of  page  46,  in  notebook  5-A,  is  found  Station 
A- 1 625,  and  a  shot  to  the  mouth  of  the  river,  with  this 
note :  ' '  Mouth  of  Middle  Creek. ' '  The  elevation  of  A- 1 626 
is  4.4  meters,  as  appears  upon  the  same  page. 

On  page  47  we  find — 

Station  A-1626  with  an  elevation  of  4.4  meters. 
"       A-1627     "      "  "  "  3.5 

"       A-1628     "      "  "         "  3.5 

"       A-1629     "      "  "         "  5.8 

On  page  53  of  the  same  notebook,  5-A,  we  find — 

Station  A-1679  with  an  elevation  of  5.4  meters. 


A-I680 

1  <      <( 

1 1 

"6.4 

"     A-I68I 

((      <( 

II 

"6.5 

"     A-I682 

(1      II 

1 1 

"5.1 

"    A-I683 

II       II 

II 

"5-8 

A- 1 684 

II       II 

1 1 

"  6.9 

"       A-1685 

II       II 

1 1 

"  6.7 

"       A-1686 

II       II 

II 

"  7.3 

7,  The  calculations  for  these  stations  are  complete  as 
to  distances  and  directions,  as  may  be  seen  by  "Pamphlet 
A-24,"  of  the  calculations  of  the  work  of  Party  A. 

The  lowest  point  on  this  line  is  Station  A-1627,  at  3.5 
meters  above  the  sea  level. 


101 

8.  Without  the  need  of  recourse  to  the  data  offered 
by  the  Commission,  it  is  easy  to  demonstrate  that  the  point 
A- 1 62 7,  with  an  elevation  of  3.5  meters,  never  was  nor  will 
it  be  inundated  by  the  floods  in  the  rivers. 

9.  For  if  that  were  to  happen  the  whole  coast,  which 
has  existed  from  time  immemorial  between  Punta  Mona 
and  the  Sixaola,  would  disappear  and  be  flooded  under  the 
waters  of  the  ocean  and  the  rivers  to  a  depth  of  more  than 
3.5  meters,  which  is  equivalent  to  twelve  and  a  half  feet. 

10.  Now,  taking  the  data  submitted  by  the  Geologist 
of  the  Commission  in  his  report  (p.  14),  the  foregoing 
results  mathematically : 

The  maximum  quantity  of  annual  rainfall,  observed 
over  a  period  of  six  years,  amounted  to  149  inches,  in  19 10; 

The  run-off,  estimated  from  direct  observations  upon 
the  ground,  reached  0.3  of  the  amount  of  the  rainfall,  and 
consequently  taking  the  period  of  heaviest  rains,  that  run- 
off would  amount  to  44.7  inches  or  i.ii  meters;  so  that 
the  station  A- 162 7  would  still  be  left  2.39  meters  above  the 
surface  of  the  water. 

But  to  assume  that  this  height  of  44.7  inches  would  be 
reached,  we  would  have  to  suppose  something  that  is  of 
course  absurd,  that  a  dam  or  barrier  could  be  raised  to  that 
level  of  44.7  inches  and  that  no  run-off  or  discharge  could 
take  place  until  that  level  had  been  reached.  No;  that 
quantity  of  rainwater  is  distributed  in  the  following 
manner : 

(i)  Absorption  by  the  soil;  enormous  in  the  present 
case,  inasmuch  as  the  valley  is  very  extensive  and  flat,  and 
the  slopes  of  the  basin  are  steep. 

(2)  Evaporation,  which  is  considerable,  stated  by  the 


102 

Geologist  himself  in  his  report  (p.  12),  where  it  is  said  that 
the  mean  temperature  at  the  meteorological  station  close 

to  Changuinola  is^         ^  =  78°  F.,  and  the  temperature  of 
2 

the  high  regions  of  the  basin  (p.  13),  is ~  =  54.5°  F., 

2 

while   the   mean   temperature   at   a  height  intermediate 
between    the    extreme    points — the    coast    and    Chirrip6 

Grande — say  at  an  elevation  of =  1925  meters» 


will 


be^^±^^  =  66.2°F. 


(3)  Absorption  by  vegetable  life,  for  its  growth  and 
development,  as  well  as  the  consumption  by  animals. 

In  an  important  article  by  Mr.  Joel  D.  Justin,  Associate 
Member  of  the  American  Society  of  Civil  Engineers,  pub- 
lished in  Vol.  XXXIX,  No.  6  of  the  "Proceedings  of  the 
American  Society  of  Civil  Engineers,"  August,  191 3,  p. 
1 22 1,  we  note  that  the  author  very  properly  considers  the 
two  items,  "slope"  and  "mean  annual  temperature,"  as 
the  principal  factors  in  determining  the  relation  to  be 
established  between  the  amount  of  rainfall  and  the  run-off. 

If  we  determine  the  evaporation,  by  means  of  the 
general  expression  found  on  page  148  of  Mr.  Daniel  W. 
Mead's  book  on  "Water  Power  Engineering," 

E  =  (i5.50+oi6R)  (0.05T-1.48) 
in  which 

E  =  The  annual  evaporation  (including  all  losses  on 
drainage  area  except  from  run-off), 


103 


R  =  The  annual  rainfall,  and 

T  =  Mean  annual  temperature, 

we  find  that  the  evaporation  is  as  high  as  71.99  inches. 

On  page  166  of  the  same  book  Mr.  Mead  establishes  the 
relation  between  monthly  depths  of  rainfall  and  run-off, 
by  means  of  certain  diagrams.  Entering  these  curves 
with  the  data  submitted  by  the  Geologist  on  page  14  of  his 
report,  we  obtain  the  following  results : 


Month. 


Rain-fall. 


January 13 

February 10 

March 5 

April 12 

May 10 

June 7 

July 14 

August 8 

September 7 

October 5 

November 8 

December 18 


36 

46. 

62, 

04, 

32 

79 

06. 

10. 

77. 
37- 
29. 

68. 


Depth  of  run-off. 

II-5 

2.5 

50 

50 

50 

30 

4-5 

30 

40 

30 

40 

8.0 


Making  a  total  run-off  of  58.5  inches,  which  added  to 
the  71.99  for  evaporation  makes  a  grand  total -of  130.49 
inches. 

But,  if  it  were  possible  to  have  any  doubt  as  to  the 
foregoing  mathematical  calculation,  let  us  even  go  so  far 
as  to  concede,  what  would  be  the  height  of  absurdity,  that 


104 


there  was  no  run-off  and  that  there  was  neither  absorption 
or  evaporation,  that  vegetables  and  animals  did  not  con- 
sume a  single  drop  of  water  and  that  a  dike  149  inches 
high  was  constructed  at  the  lowest  station  on  the  line,  the 
elevation  of  which  we  saw  was  3.5  meters.  Such  a  dike 
would  hold  back  the  entire  amount  of  the  rain  that  fell 
to  the  end  of  the  year,  but  even  so,  that  station  lying  at 
an  elevation  of  3.5  meters  would  only  be  submerged  9 
inches,  while  the  next  one,  220  meters  distant  from  it, 
having  an  elevation  of  4.4  meters  would  still  be  left  27 
inches  above  the  water  level. 

How,  then,  is  it  possible  to  understand  that  the  Com- 
mission, having  this  data  in  its  possession,  with  the  proofs 
that  the  line  that  was  run,  was  not  and  never  could  be 
inundated,  could  have  disregarded  them  for  the  purpose 
of  substituting  therefor  an  assertion  that  seriously  affects 
the  interests  of  Costa  Rica,  by  saying  that  the  whole 
region  was  inundated  when  floods  prevailed  in  the  rivers? 

All  the  other  points  upon  that  localized  Hne  were  higher 
still,  and  so,  of  course,  they  were  beyond  even  the  very 
highest  floods. 

11.  It  is  not  possible,  therefore,  in  the  face  of  the  data 
referred  to  and  with  a  knowledge  of  these  facts,  to  under- 
stand how  the  Commission  could  have  neglected  to  apply 
them,  and  have  substituted  therefor  an  unjustifiable 
hypothesis. 

12.  In  the  accompanying  map,  Plate  No.  Ill,  are  embraced 
the  data  that  appear  recorded  only  in  the  field  notebooks ;  it 
may  be  seen  that  the  extreme  eastern  section  of  Punta 
Mona  is  joined  to  the  one  that  is  left  toward  the  south 
by  the  line  that  starts  from  the  mouth  of  Middle  Creek, 
and  following  its  course  upward  it  connects  with  the  line 
that  terminates  at  Station  A- 1686. 


105 


EQUATION  OF  LINES. 

13.  Another  of  the  points  that  need  explanation  is  the 
one  referred  to  in  paragraph  6,  Chapter  V,  of  this  paper. 

It  is  common  among  engineers,  while  at  work  in  the 
field,  if  in  running  new  lines,  stakes  or  marks  of  abandoned 
lines  are  met  with,  to  note  the  equivalence  between  the 
abandoned  stake  and  the  new  one  that  is  set.  The  pur- 
pose of  this  is  to  check  the  levels  and  to  make  use  of  the 
abandoned  work  for  the  better  understanding  of  the 
topography  of  the  region  that  is  being  studied.  This  is 
known  as  "  Equation  of  Lines,"  and  it  is  not  rare  to  find 
A-i62  =  B-62. 

14.  But  in  the  present  case  the  Commission  not  only 
repeatedly  checked  the  line  that  the  Engineer  of  Panama, 
Doctor  Don  Abel  Bravo,  marked  and  laid  down,  without 
any  justification  appearing  therefor  in  any  notebook,  but 
it  abandoned  the  height  that  ran  forming  the  divide  of 
Middle  Creek  and  which  ended  at  Station  A- 1686  and 
branched  off  at  some  capriciously  selected  point  as  the 
Panamanian  Map  of  Sefior  Bravo  also  branched  off  to 
proceed  to  Punta  Mona. 

15.  That  the  Commission  followed  the  Panama  line,  as 
stated  in  the  foregoing  paragraph,  is  shown  quite  clearly 
by  the  following  data  taken  literally  from  the  field  note- 
books of  Party  A. 

Notebook  No.  A. 

Page  23.     Station  A-15.     At  head  of  Valley. 

"     25.  "       A- 1 8  is   old   stake,   supposed   to   be 

Bravo's  line. 

"     71.  "       A-160  =  Bravo's  60. 

"     71.  "       A-161  =        "        61. 

"     71.  "      A-162  =        "        62. 


106 


Page  Station  A- 163  =  Bravo 's  63. 

A-164  =        "        64. 

A-165  =        "        65. 

72.  "       A-166  =         "        66. 

97-  "      A-221  =        "        Buena  Vista. 

97.  "       A-218  =  isnear  Bravo's  124. 

121.         "       A-359  =  Bravo's  200. 


NOTEBOOK  2 -A. 
Page  56.     Station  A-265  =  Bravo's  160. 


100. 

14. 

108. 


A-479  =        "        239. 

A-68     =  Shot  to  Bravo's  Line. 

A-499  =  Bravo's  Camp. 


Notebook  No.  3-A. 


Page    9 


Station  A-303  =  Bravo's  294.  Panama  map 


5 

17 
15 
15 
II 
21 

23 
29 

31 
37 
39 
41 
47 
47 
49 
57 
59  and  60. 


A-587 
A-625 
A-618 
A-620 
A-609 
A-742 

A-734 
A-766 

A-773 
A-790 

A-795 
A-779 
A-817 
A-806 

A-828 
A-848 


287. 

End   of  branch. 
End  of  branch  A-620. 
Branch  Hne. 
Branch  Hne. 

Bravo's  387.   Panama  map. 
End  of  branch. 
End  of  branch. 
Bravo's  369.  Panama  map 
End  of  branch. 


Bravo's  377.  Panama  map. 
End  of  branch. 
Branch  Hne. 
388  Bravo. 
End  of  branch. 
Station  A-851  =  Bravo's  No.  392. 

' *       A-853  =        "  "     394- 

141  and  and  142.     Station  A- 2 136  =  Bravo's  483. 


107 

Notebook  No.  4-A. 

Page    I.     Station  A-630  =  Bravo's  308. 

"     69.  "       A-1178  =        "        452. 

"     81.  "       A-1283  =        "        511. 

"  119.  "       A-1431  =        "        600. 

16.  Placing  one  upon  the  other  the  Panamanian 
tracing  made  by  Doctor  Bravo,  and  that  of  the  Commission 
submitted  by  it,  the  proof  of  what  is  being  discussed 
becomes  evident,  as  may  be  seen  by  a  glance  at  the 
tracing  referred  to  in  Chapter  V. 

17.  To  the  present  paper  two  maps  are  appended,  pre- 
pared to  illustrate  what  has  been  stated. 

The  first  one,  Plate  No.  Ill,  contains  solely  and  exclu- 
sively the  data  that  the  Commission  obtained  at  Punta 
Mona  and  in  its  vicinity  across  Swamp  A,  as  shown  by 
and  as  appears  from  the  records  in  the  field  notebooks  of 
the  respective  camps.     That  map  is  entitled : 

Map  showing  the  only  data  taken  by  the  Commission 
of  Engineers  at  Punta  Mona  and  its  surroundings." 

18.  From  this  it  may  be  seen  that  the  only  traverse 
line,  which  was  run  from  the  mouth  of  Middle  Creek 
towards  the  south,  to  connect  with  Station  A- 1686,  was 
eliminated  from  the  maps  of  the  Commission ; 

19.  That  line,  as  it  has  been  demonstrated  in  paragraph 
10,  showed  a  crest  that  was  constant  and  never  submerged, 
and  which  terminated  upon  the  coast  near  the  mouth  of 
Middle  Clerk. 

20.  Upon  the  second  map,  Plate  No.  VI,  which  was 
copied  from  the  first  one  above  mentioned,  the  same  data 
are  represented,  confined  to  what  is  shown  by  the  records 
of  the  Commission,  and  the  course  described,  which  the 


108 


Commission  omitted  on  the  final  maps,  and  for  which  it  sub- 
stituted the  drawing  of  a  new  Une,  indicated  by  two  parallel 
lines  terminating  at  Punta  Mona.  And  it  was  in  this 
form,  disguised  by  a  fanciful  delimitation,  that  the  Com- 
mission presented  what  it  called  a  "Continuous  survey 
from  Cuabre  to  Punta  Mona.'' 

21.  It  should  be  noted  that  upon  neither  of  these  maps 
are  any  level  curves  or  contour  lines  delineated,  since 
there  does  not  appear  in  the  field  books  any  justifica- 
tion therefor.  It  is  usual  for  an  engineer  in  charge  of  a 
topographical  survey,  while  running  a  traverse  line,  to 
note  in  his  field  book  at  the  different  stations  of  the 
instrument,  the  cross  sections  upon  the  main  line  that  is 
being  laid  down,  using  a  hand-level  or  clinometer  that 
will  indicate  the  gradient  to  one  side  or  the  other  of  the 
point  in  question,  and  with  this  annotation  it  is  possible 
to  delineate  the  contours  showing  the  general  topography 
in  the  immediate  vicinity  of  the  line  that  is  being  run. 

22.  In  the  present  case  the  Commission  did  not  deem 
it  necessary  to  take  these  data,  which  could  have  been  set 
down  in  the  note  books  on  the  field,  and  apparently  was 
satisfied  to  draw  "contour  lines"  deduced  solely  from  the 
levels  taken  at  two  neighboring  points,  but  such  a  practice 
has  no  scientific  value  in  this  kind  of  work.  This  problem 
of  contour  lines  is  too  important  in  the  consideration 
of  this  controversy  for  us  to  refrain  from  strengthening 
the  reasons  that  constrain  us  to  refuse  to  accept  them  as 
correct,  all  the  more  when  there  is  material  therefor. 

23.  In  the  Report  of  the  Commission  (p.  4),  the  follow- 
ing language  is  used : 

"The  contours  are  controlled  in  position  by  the 
general  knowledge  of  the  country  gained  by  members 
of  the  Commission  survey  parties.     In  some  portions 


109 

of  these  areas  sketches  made  in  the  field,  but  u:lthout 
instrumental  control  in  these  parts  form  a  portion 
of  the  basis  of  the  map." 

24.  The  foregoing  statement,  while  it  strengthens  the 
present  allegation,  further  declares  at  the  same  time,  that 
instruments  were  not  employed  for  the  determination  of 
these  lines  but  they  were  traced  by  the  eye,  and  not  even 
by  those  chiefly  responsbile  for  the  survey,  but  by  their 
employees. 

25.  In  a  matter  of  a  legal  character,  like  the  present  one, 
the  instrumental  data  may  be  conceded  and  we  may  even 
go  to  the  extent  of  admitting  the  facts  personally  gained 
by  employees  of  the  Commission,  as  being  correct,  but 
not  the  data  or  facts  for  the  verification  of  which  mathe- 
mathical  operations  are  indispensably  necessary. 

26.  If  the  mere  sight  would  serve  to  determine  observa- 
tions, as  it  seems  to  have  served  the  Commission,  in  the 
same  way  it  used  the  time  elapsed  to  run  over  a  course  in 
order  to  ascertain  its  length,  surveying  chains  and  levels 
would  become  quite  superfluous.  It  is,  of  course,  recog- 
nized that  these  instruments  are  susceptible  to  error,  but 
means  have  been  found  to  diminish  or  render  them  of  little 
consequence. 

27.  So  while  it  may  be  conceded  that  the  rugged  bluff's 
along  the  heights  that  limit  the  course  of  the  vSixaola  upon 
the  north  do  really  exist,  having  'been  personally  observed 
by  employees  of  the  Commission  and  recognized  by  the 
Commission  itself,  still  it  cannot  be  accepted  in  the  same 
way  the  contour  lines,  delineated  according  to  the 
caprice  or  the  fancy  of  employees  in  the  interior  of  the 
territory,  and  where  the  difficulties  met  with,  in  so  irregular 
a  configuration  as  that  to  be  found  there,  require  the  aid 
of  instruments  for  their  solution. 

1559—9 


110 


28.  Citing  but  one  case  only  as  showing  the  abuse  to 
which  the  method  adopted  by  the  Commission  as  regards 
the  contour  lines  has  given  rise,  it  is  sufficient  to  refer 
to  what  happened  in  the  case  of  the  traverse  line  run  to 
Middle  Creek,  upon  the  coast — the  levels  for  which  were 
determined  by  instruments — and  for  some  unknown 
reason  this  line  was  omitted  in  the  considerations  of  the 
Commission. 

29.  The  construction  of  the  map  showing  the  substitu- 
tion of  the  line  that  was  drawn  upon  the  maps  of  the 
Commission  as  running  to  Punta  Mona  for  the  line 
that  was  run  to  the  mouth  of  Middle  Creek,  will  be 
justified  by  the  appending  full  notes  relating  to  the 
survey  of  this  last  line,  as  they  are  found  in  the  field 
books  cited  in  paragraph  7  of  this  chapter,  and  the 
calculations  of  which  were  embraced  in  Pamphlet  No. 
24,  submitted  by  the  Commission,  and  are  here  repro- 
duced : 


Book.  Page.  Sta. 

3  A    33  776 

33  111 

39  796 

41  797 

41  798 

41  799 

41  800 

41  801 

41  802 

43  803 

43  804 

43  805 

49  824 

49  825 

49  826 

49  827 

59  849 

59  851 


Azimuth. 

311-44-00 

246-57^00 

218-48-00 

273-48-00 

266-36-00 

282-15-00 

301-40-00 

318-34-00 

301-02-30 

333-36-00 

337-35-00 
260-03-00 
274-56-00 
326-49-00 
349-34-00 
324-22-00 
254-54-00 
287-35-00 


Dist.     Elevation. 


69.2 

55-7 
39-6 
55-2 
46.2 

74-9 
79.2 

52.5 
58.7 
64.9 

56.3 
68.2 

46.3 
67.0 

31 -7 
39  o 
52.0 
58.4 


106.9 

101 . 1 

94.6 

81. 1 

79-4 

83.6  Bravo  377 
92.8 
94.0 
84.9 
77-7 
89 -5 
91.7 
88.3 
87.4 
903 

103.3  Bravo 388 
87.2 

97 . 2  Bravo  392 


Ill 


3ook.  Pa%c. 

Sta. 

Azimuth. 

Dh 

"'. 

E'cvalion. 

3  A   59 

852 

270-02-00 

363 

98.2 

59 

853 

284-1 1 -00 

51 

3 

93 

9  Bravo  394 

59 

854 

300-55-00 

65 

0 

95 

8 

6i 

855 

296-26-30 

57 

9 

99 

4 

6i 

856 

249-19-30 

37 

8 

89 

9 

4  A   23 

893 

176-07-00 

91 

7 

63 

7 

23 

894 

182-37-00 

46 

6 

57 

3 

23 

895 

254-53-00 

54 

5 

94 

9 

23 

896 

278-06-00 

62 

8 

94 

7 

23 

897 

310-30-00 

45 

3 

96 

I 

25 

898 

325-37-00 

27 

9 

98 

5 

25 

899 

297-05-00 

54 

7 

98 

I 

25 

900 

333-27-00 

20 

0 

100 

8 

25 

901 

338-44-00 

40 

2 

100 

8 

25 

902 

285-17-00 

38 

3 

91 

2 

3  A   115  1 

092 

234-16-00 

34 

5 

79 

7 

115  1 

093 

21 1-30-00 

57 

9 

74 

8 

115  1 

094 

234-05-00 

34 

5 

74 

8 

115  1 

095 

184-57-00 

82 

6 

73 

7 

115  1 

096 

1 90-02-30 

37 

2 

72 

I 

115  1 

097 

196-21-00 

60 

7 

68 

7 

117  ] 

098 

206-00-00 

57 

1 

66 

5 

117  1 

099 

179-10-00 

41 

5 

66 

3 

117  ] 

100 

234-42-30 

49 

9 

63 

5 

117  ] 

lOI 

209-09-00 

53 

0 

62 

6 

117  1 

102 

229-15-00 

31 

3 

62 

3 

117  1 

103 

193-52-00 

49 

8 

57 

5 

119  ] 

104 

233-48-00 

61 

I 

61 

0 

119  ] 

^05 

166-38-00 

27 

5 

60 

0 

4  A   53  ] 

[127 

152-12-00 

58 

3 

52 

6 

53  1 

128 

183-01-00 

40 

6 

49 

9 

53  1 

129 

187-34-00 

56 

4 

49 

0 

53  I 

130 

2 1 8-og-oo 

65 

I 

56 

7 

53  1 

131 

161-59-00 

68 

0 

53 

4 

53  1 

132 

159-06-00 

29 

0 

55 

9 

55  1 

fi33 

138-42-00 

36 

9 

59 

6 

55  ' 

ti34 

86-35-30 

36 

9 

56 

6 

55  ' 

1135 

55-51-00 

41 

2 

46 

I 

55 

1136 

62-30-00 

58 

9 

48 

5 

55 

[137 

1 50-04-00 

63 

3 

47 

0 

55 

[138 

186-55-00 

44 

8 

51 

4 

57 

^39 

206-49-30 

33 

5 

46 

4 

112 


idok. 

Page. 

.S7d. 

AzimtUh. 

Disl. 

Klevi 

ili 

4  A 

57 

140 

171-56-CX) 

^'7-3 

47.0 

57 

1141 

228-25-00 

41.4' 

43 

7 

65 

163 

240-38-00 

5«.5 

42 

2 

65 

164 

229-25-30 

45.8 

43 

I 

65 

165 

253  1 2-00 

3^>  •  9 

48 

I 

65 

166 

254-48-00 

39-3 

49 

4 

65  > 

[167 

268-49-00 

27.8 

43 

9 

65 

168 

214-41-00 

39  •  3 

53 

3 

67 

169 

156-46-00 

71-3 

51 

1 

67 

[170 

209-49-30 

42 -9 

54 

4 

67 

171 

270-45-00 

68.4 

55 

7 

67 

172 

256-16-00 

27.4 

58 

9 

67 

173 

162-39-00 

42.4 

54 

0 

67 

[174 

178-53-00 

43-7 

59 

0 

69 

1175 

221-21-30 

44-7 

54 

5 

69 

L176 

176-01-00 

38.6 

54 

3 

69 

177 

193-10-00 

50.6 

57 

8 

69  ] 

180 

179-12-00 

47.6 

73 

4 

69  I 

181 

281-39-00 

16.6 

71 

6 

3A 

129 

1201 

148-49-00 

255 

77 

4 

129  ] 

[202 

73-04-00 

23.1 

70 

0 

129  ] 

[203 

138-58-00 

46.2 

67 

7 

131  ] 

204 

181-34-00 

57-2 

68 

6 

131  1 

205 

204-59-00 

32.4 

70 

5 

131 

[206 

181-54-00 

52.6 

67 

9 

131 

[207 

190-50-00 

43-8 

75 

4 

131 

[2o8 

160-16-00 

36.8 

87 

9 

131 

[209 

202-08-00 

61.4 

102 

5 

133 

210 

226-38-cx) 

25 -9 

105 

8 

133 

21  I 

189-42-00 

48-5 

119 

5 

137 

1224 

2  78-35-<^o 

52.7 

124 

9 

137 

[225 

255-13-00 

60 . 9 

129 

6 

137 

[226 

293-20-00 

40.0 

129 

2 

137 

[227 

294-26-00 

18.5 

134 

9 

137 

[228 

254-27-00 

256 

131 

8 

139  ] 

[229 

281-31-00 

41-5 

137 

4 

139  1 

[230 

264-48-00 

32.1 

134 

8 

139 

[231 

271-31-00 

43-3 

127 

8 

139  1 

[232 

243-30-00 

32.9 

123 

2 

139 

[233 

227-03-00 

56.9 

146 

2 

139  1 

1234 

228-53-00 

34-3 

145 

7 

J41  1 

[235 

218-42-00 

20.2 

144 

4 

113 


Book.  Page. 

Sta. 

Azimuth. 

Dist. 

Elevation. 

3  A      141 

[236 

224-39-00 

49.6 

164. I  Bravo 

483 

141 

1237 

208-03-00 

27 

■4 

180.7 

141 

1238 

260-12-00 

35 

•  3 

184.3 

145 

1239 

260-45-00 

19 

■4 

192.7 

145 

1240 

306-15-00 

60 

■7 

188.2 

4  A        75 

1264 

299-22-00 

22 

.6 

189.2 

75 

1265 

325-02-00 

34 

•7 

186.4 

75 

1266 

331-18-00 

22 

•4 

180.8 

75 

[267 

334-50-00 

19 

.8 

180.6 

75 

[268 

09-22-00 

24 

■5 

1750 

75 

[269 

266-18-00 

38 

9 

176.7 

77 

[270 

252-38-00 

56 

0 

180.0 

77 

[271 

290-30-00 

25 

2 

183.8 

77 

[272 

274-15-00 

21 

0 

180.5 

77 

1273 

280-31-00 

57 

2 

178.7 

77 

[274 

257-25-00 

40 

3 

178.5 

77 

t275 

229-40-30 

22 

9 

187-5 

79 

[276 

321-47-30 

22 

6 

191-7 

79     ] 

1277 

303-52-30 

57 

8 

186. 1 

79     5 

[091 

331-24-30 

51 

I 

176.9 

79     1 

[278 

303-44-00 

70 

7 

176.5 

79 

[279 

304-32-30 

56 

I 

173-I 

79     1 

:28o 

284-01-00 

36 

9 

178.8 

81      ] 

281 

218-57-00 

31 

8 

185.2 

81      ] 

282 

250-25-00 

57 

3 

185.0 

8i     ] 

283 

271-36-00 

53 

I 

194.0  Bravo 

511 

81      ] 

284 

309-53-00 

79 

6 

188.9 

81      ] 

285 

323-35-00 

24 

I 

187.0 

81     ] 

286 

303-30-00 

77 

2 

166.2 

83     ^ 

287 

296-34-00 

59 

5 

166.3 

83     ^ 

288 

319-04-00 

56 

0 

177-7 

83     1 

289 

290-45-00 

67 

9 

155-2 

83     1 

290 

298-06-00 

52 

I 

158.5 

83     1 

291 

293-05-00 

67 

2 

144.8 

83     1 

292 

280-09-00 

62 

6 

166.7 

S5     1 

293 

280-50-00 

41 

^ 

0 

1750 

85     > 

29^ 

313-05-00 

58 

5 

171-5 

87     1 

295 

271-14-00 

68 

I 

147.0 

87     1 

296 

268-54-30 

44 

I 

166.9 

87     ] 

297 

248-36-00 

26 

9 

183.8 

87     1 

298 

260-56-00 

34- 

4 

1793 

87     1 

299 

329-16-00 

48 

8 

151-4 

114 


Book. 

Pa^c.  Sta. 

Azimuth. 

/;/j 

7. 

Elcvali 

4  A 

87 

1300 

317-10-00 

69 

•4 

131.6 

89 

1301 

338-27-00 

40 

■4 

144.6 

89 

1302 

293-19-00 

36 

•4 

135-6 

89 

•303 

269-30-00 

48 

.  1 

151-5 

89 

•304 

301-12-00 

19 

.8 

147-8 

89 

1305 

317-46-30 

58 

.  I 

127.0 

89 

1306 

312-26-00 

46 

.8 

126.8 

91 

1307 

285-12-30 

43 

•3 

128.4 

91 

1308 

280-40-00 

61 

•9 

117.8 

91 

1309 

281-24-00 

41 

9 

110.4 

91 

1310 

327-28-00 

23 

.  1 

106.3 

91 

1311 

317-04-00 

27 

3 

101.8 

91 

[312 

278-15-30 

65 

3 

95-1 

93 

f3i3 

285-17-00 

63 

5 

79.8 

93 

'3H 

249-22-00 

29 

I 

96.5 

93 

1315 

262-33-00 

17 

8 

100.9 

93 

[316 

263-38-00 

39 

3 

102.3 

93 

^317 

291-25-00 

43 

1 

107.3 

93 

[318 

258-17-00 

61 

9 

112. 4 

95 

^319 

275-30-00 

38 

2 

109.4 

95 

[320 

296-21-00 

56 

5 

92.9 

95 

321 

256-29-00 

50 

3 

99.1 

95 

[322 

272-32-00 

64 

9 

86.4 

95 

323 

265-34-30 

65 

9 

78.3 

95 

324 

293-59-00 

36 

9 

70.1 

97     ] 

[325 

263-01-00 

70 

I 

84.0 

97     J 

326 

272-19-00 

45 

8 

62.0 

97     1 

[327 

249-12-30 

65 

I 

41.1 

97     ] 

328 

303-59-00 

53 

2 

35-8 

97     1 

329 

03-04-00 

54 

3 

39-1 

97     1 

330 

281-07-00 

47 

I 

82.6 

97     1 

331 

302-50-00 

108 

9 

61 .4 

99     1 

332 

337-23-30 

44 

0 

61 .9 

99     1 

333 

313-00-00 

35 

3 

67.1 

99     ' 

334 

271-51-30 

46 

1 

64.2 

99      1 

335 

235-46-00 

39 

8 

55-1 

99     ' 

336 

I 84-05-00 

61 

8 

36.4 

99     1 

337 

243-24-00 

44 

0 

43-8 

lOI        ] 

338 

170-12-00 

68 

7 

53-5 

lOI       1 

339 

247-50-00 

53 

9 

46-7 

lOI       1 

340 

205-14-00 

50. 

5 

45-9 

lOI        1 

341 

140-41-00 

42. 

I 

49.0 

115 


Book. 

Page. 

Sta. 

Azimuth. 

Disk 

Elevation 

4A 

lOI    ] 

342 

167-47-00 

33-3 

49.1 

lOI    ] 

343 

113-47-00 

85 

I 

41.8 

103  I 

344 

156-52-00 

59- 

7 

39-9 

103  I 

345 

185-43-30 

39- 

3 

40.8 

103  1 

346 

247-04-00 

44 

5 

28.5 

103  1 

347 

160-39-00 

76 

6 

10.3 

103  1 

348 

140-13-00 

38 

6 

175 

103  1 

349 

160-44-00 

34 

3 

05.6 

105  ] 

350 

205-51-00 

106 

3 

4-9 

105  ] 

351 

210-41-00 

113 

3 

3-9 

105   ] 

352 

201-20-00 

76 

3 

3-8 

105   ] 

353 

205-08-00 

70 

6 

3-7 

105  ] 

354 

200-05-00 

45 

3 

3-8 

105  ) 

355 

206-09-00 

93 

3 

3-5 

107   ] 

356 

208-01-00 

45 

3 

3-5 

107  ] 

357 

200-15-00 

64 

3 

3-5 

107  ] 

358 

209-35-00 

39 

8 

3-6 

5A 

55  1 

685 

118-06-00 

47 

3 

6.9 

55  ] 

686 

88-27-00 

45 

4 

6.7 

55 

[687 

356^4-00 

125 

8 

7-3 

55  ] 

[688 

19-22-00 

98 

9 

7-9 

55  1 

1689 

00-19-30 

72 

2 

9-5 

55  1 

[690 

91-30-00 

74 

4 

14.0 

55 

[691 

91-08-30 

105 

2 

20.0 

55 

[692 

334-56-00 

76 

3 

8.4 

57 

t693 

306-15-30 

37 

3 

9.2 

57 

[694 

329-43-00 

42 

2 

5-8 

57 

1695 

90-30-00 

119 

4 

21.2 

57 

[696 

90-25-00 

43 

6 

26.6 

57 

[697 

97-12-00 

100 

0 

II. 8 

57 

[698 

112-25-00 

43 

.  I 

27.2 

59 

[699 

66-41-00 

69 

•3 

28.9 

59 

[700 

132-47-00 

69 

.  I 

32.9 

59 

1 701 

96-09-00 

103 

.2 

29.8 

59 

1702 

138-38-00 

68 

•9 

350 

59 

1703 

164-48-00 

89 

■3 

34- 1 

59 

1704 

141-13-30 

55 

.8 

34-1 

61 

1705 

92-18-30 

62 

.0 

27.1 

61 

1706 

94-47-00 

51 

.0 

42.3 

61 

1707 

98-13-00 

114 

•9 

42.5 

61 

1708 

118-09-00 

98 

•4 

41.2 

61 

1709 

121-00-00 

77 

.  I 

45-4 

no 


Book.   Pane. 

Sla. 

Azimuth. 

Dist. 

Elevat 

5  A       6i 

1710 

150-31-00 

653 

45-2 

63 

1711 

134-08-00 

72.2 

41.4 

63 

1712 

112-24-00 

86.8 

43-5 

63 

1713 

141-01-00 

95-3 

40.7 

63 

1714 

142-43--00 

82.7 

40.0 

63 

1715 

136-32-00 

62.8 

34-2 

63 

1716 

95-23-00 

59-4 

45-5 

65 

1717 

119-04-00 

95-6 

45-6 

65 

1718 

107-22-00 

22.4 

47.0 

45 

1625 

323-26-00 

243 -8 

3-5 

45 

1626 

36-49-00 

220.3 

4.4 

47 

1627 

31-33-00 

172.8 

3-5 

47 

1628 

26-16-00 

1743 

5-5 

47 

1629 

44-52-00 

226.0 

5-8 

47 

1630 

32-04-00 

186.9 

5-5 

47 

1 63 1 

23-04-30 

1393 

5-6 

47 

1632 

02-47-00 

1743 

6.1 

49 

1633 

358-45-00 

168.6 

6.7 

49 

1634 

354-47-00 

114. 8 

71 

49 

1635 

43-49-00 

148.3 

7-4 

49 

1636 

45-44-00 

161 .2 

7-2 

49 

1637 

46-56-00 

155-4 

7.2 

49 

1638 

48-22-00 

188.5 

7.0 

51 

1639 

54-00-00 

83-3 

7.0 

51 

1640 

66-30-00 

169.7 

7-9 

51 

1641 

62-40-30 

144.8 

8.7 

51 

1642 

49-04-30 

169.6 

9-9 

51 

1643 

49-58-00 

194- 3 

12.4 

51 

1644 

44-49-00 

127.8 

14.1 

4  A      147 

1645 

213-31-00 

35-3 

3-4 

147 

1646 

226-27-00 

99-5 

8.4 

H7 

1647 

205-21-00 

74-5 

4.0 

147 

1648 

233-18-30 

49-3 

5-2 

H7 

1649 

257-43-00 

96.9 

4-7 

147 

1650 

188-22-00 

57-1 

51 

149 

1651 

1 1 1-49-00 

49-7 

4-7 

149 

1652 

173-20-30 

74-3 

50 

149 

1653 

124-17-30 

40.2 

9.0 

149 

1654 

175-35-00 

45  0 

5-5 

149 

1655 

229-59-00 

46.3 

4-5 

151 

1656 

207-11-00 

50.1 

28.7 

151 

1657 

283-38-30 

158. 1 

34-8 

117 


Book. 

Page. 

^/a. 

Azimuth. 

Dh 

/. 

Elevalion 

4A 

151 

1658 

228-24-00 

32.6 

29:0 

151 

1659 

277-21-30 

106 

5 

19.2 

151 

[660 

277-31-00 

29 

2 

18.9 

153 

[661 

283-19-00 

30 

5 

15-7 

153 

[662 

255-45-00 

96 

1 

5-2 

153 

[663 

298-19-00 

194 

3 

2.0 

153 

[664 

145-44-00 

75 

0 

23 -5 

155 

[665 

106-49-00 

51 

2 

21.6 

155 

[666 

143-46-00 

34 

7 

18.1 

155 

[667 

165-05-00 

75 

6 

30 

155 

[668 

165-17-00 

93 

4 

II-5 

155 

[669 

237-13-00 

48 

7 

1.6 

157 

[670 

1 14-58-00 

18 

4 

16.7 

157  1 

[671 

129-17-00 

41 

9 

20. 1 

157 

[672 

204-41-00 

22 

2 

21.3 

157  1 

[673 

188-34-00 

25 

3 

22.0 

157 

[674 

168-11-00 

71 

3 

18.3 

157  ^ 

[675 

93-39-<5o 

15 

9 

152 

5A 

21 

[676 

84-00-00 

53 

9 

14.6 

21  ] 

[677 

100-55-00 

23 

4 

18.4 

21  ] 

678 

104-30-00 

64 

2 

16.0 

53  ] 

679 

82-59-30 

127 

3 

5-4 

53  J 

[680 

70-24-00 

128 

5 

5-9 

53  1 

681 

56-46-00 

76 

9 

6.7 

53  1 

682 

90-08-00 

77 

6 

6.5 

53  1 

683 

06-2  7-00 

63 

8 

5-1 

53  1 

684 

73-16-00 

50 

3 

5-8 

55  3 

685 

118-06-00 

47 

3 

6.9 

55  ] 

686 

88-27-00 

45 

4 

6.7 

3 1 .  The  line  to  Middle  Creek  being  thus  vouched  for, 
the  Commission  undertook  to  justify  the  line  to  Punta 
Mona  which  it  substituted  therefor,  by  the  use  of  the 
following  language : 

"With  this  exception  this  divide  is  well  determined, 
by  closely  controlled  topography  depending  upon  a 
traverse  line  run  near  or  along  it,  under,  etc."^ 

^Report  of  the  Commission,  p.  55. 


118 

32.  There  are  in  that  paragraph  two  fundamental  errors. 
The  first  one  is  in  the  reference  to  "this  divide,"  where 
it  is  presented  as  the  main  divide,  whereas  the  fact  is 
that  it  is  no  more  than  the  divide  which  is  the  north  limit  oj 
the  area  which  drains  into  the  Atlantic  further  south  than 
Punta  Mona.  The  second,  and  most  important  one,  is  in 
asserting  that  such  divide  "is  well  determined  by  closely 
controlled  topography  depending  upon  a  traverse  line  run 
near  or  along  it,"  for  it  only  needs  a  glance  at  the  map,  Plate 
No.  VI,  to  be  convinced  that  the  line  drawn  in  black  is  not 
near  the  traverse  line  that  was  run  (in  red),  but  that  it 
was  distant  therefrom  at  times  as  far  as  3,250  meters,  as 
was  the  case  at  the  point  A- 1690,  upon  the  left  bank  of 
Middle  Creek,  and  at  the  place  close  to  Station  A-1414, 
in  the  survey  of  Punta  Mona. 

33.  There  has  been  prepared  one  profile  of  the  traverse 
line  that  terminates  near  the  mouth  of  Aliddle  Creek, 
using  the  same  data  that  is  to  be  found  in  the  field  books, 
to  which  reference  has  been  made.  This  profile  in  shown 
on  Plate  VIII,  entitled:  "Profile  of  the  traverse  line  that 
follows  a  permanent  divide  to  the  mouth  of  Middle  Creek, 
together  with  the  profile  of  the  hypothetical  line  arbitrarily 
drawn  across  swamp  A." 


CHAPTER  VII. 


THE  LONGITUDINAL  PROFILE  SUBMITTED  BY 
THE  COMMISSION. 

1.  This  profile  appears  upon  a  single  page  and  it  is 
entitled : 

"Profile  oj  the  Sixaola  River  and  of  the  Divide  which 
is  the  north  limit  of  its  drainage  area,  together  with 
branch  divides  to  the  north." 

2.  A  profile  is  a  section  normal  to  the  horizontal  plane 
of  a  line  traced  upon  a  surface,  and  serving  to  represent 
one  aspect  of  the  data  used  to  locate  the  line  in  question, 
showing  its  elevation  and  the  dilTerences  in  the  heights 
of  all  the  points  along  such  line. 

3.  But  if  the  points  upon  the  horizontal  plan  are  uncer- 
tain, approximate,  hypothetical  or  arbitrary,  as  some  of 
these  appear  on  the  maps  of  the  commission,  then  the 
profile  that  is  prepared  from  those  points  is  also  subject 
to  these  same  anomalies. 

4.  It  so  happens  that  there  has  come  to  our  knowledge 
the  motive  that  led  the  Commission  to  present  such  a 
document  and  which  explains  more  satisfactorily  its 
existence. 

5.  It  has  been  said  more  satisfactorily,  because  it  does 
not  appear  from  the  series  of  questions  formulated  by  the 
two  countries  and  laid  before  the  Honorable  Arbitrator  any 
request  made  in  that  respect.  Nor  is  there  any  indication 
in  the  plan  formulated  by  the  Commission,  approved  by 
the  parties  and  by  the  Honorable  Arbitrator,  that  the  pres- 
entation of  any  such  profile  was  contemplated. 

(119) 


120 

6.  But  in  the  " Estrella  de  Panama"  (Panama  Star,  a 
newspaper  published  on  the  Isthmus),  on  the  26th  of  July 
last  past,  there  appeared  an  interview  with  Seiior  Dr. 
Jorge  Boyd  by  the  Editor  of  that  periodical,  in  which  the 
former  made  the  statement  that  such  a  profile  had  been 
constructed  by  the  Commission  in  compliance  with  one  of 
the  requests  made  thereto  by  Dr.  Boyd  himself  during 
the  course  of  the  work,  he  being  the  Representative  of 
Panama  in  the  Boundary  Question. 

7.  In  that  interview,  are  to  be  found,  literally  copied, 
various  paragraphs  from  the  Report  of  the  Geologist  of 
the  Commission  and  several  notes  taken  from  the  General 
Report,  revealing  the  fact  that  such  data  were  already 
within  the  knowledge  and  in  the  possession  of  Panama, 
before  the  Honorable  Arbitrator  knew  anything  about 
them,  and,  unless  the  moral  responsibility  were  placed  upon 
the  Commission  of  having  communicated  its  opinion  to  one 
of  the  parties,  before  it  was  known  by  the  Honorable  Judge 
who  is  to  give  the  decision,  it  might  be  supposed  that  this 
was  the  result  of  some  confidence  on  the  part  of  the 
Engineer  of  that  Republic,  and  on  that  account  to  a 
certain  extent  excusable;  but  what  neither  is,  nor  can 
be  a  matter  of  confidence  nor  excusable,  was  the  fact  that 
appeared  in  that  article  in  the  "Estrella,"  where  Seiior 
Boyd  declared,  in  speaking  of  the  documents  submitted 
to  the  Honorable  Arbitrator,  using  the  following  language : 
"Beside  there  is  one  special  profile,  on  a  single  sheet, 
entitled :  'A  combined  profile  of  the  River  Sixaola  and  of 
the  drainage  from  the  area  of  the  same  river  throughout 
its  entire  extent,'  as  far  as  Punta  Mona,  which  I  particu- 
larly asked  for  in  one  of  my  requests  to  the  Commission." 

7.  Compare  the  translation  made  by  Dr.  Boyd  with 
the  original  title  of  the  map  and  with  what  is  said  in  this 


121 

respect  on  pages  2  and  5  of  the  report  of  the  Commission, 
and  their  identity  will  be  manifest. 

8.  The  facts,  therefore,  appear,  as  evidenced  by  Dr. 
Boyd  himself,  that  the  Commission,  in  the  preparation 
of  the  profile  submitted,  did  comply  strictly  with  one  of 
the  various  requests  that  Panama  made  to  it  directly, 
through  its  Representative. 


CHAPTER    VIII. 


NEW  PROOFS. 

1 .  It  has  been  stated  that  the  Hne  drawn  upon  the  maps 
as  the  Divide  of  the  Sixaola  Basin  on  the  north,  does  not  in 
any  of  its  intermediary  or  its  extreme  points,  meet  the 
conditions  of  the  Lou  bet  Award. 

As  stated  elsewhere  this  demonstration  has  been  founded 
solely  and  exclusively  upon  facts  and  arguments  derived 
from  the  reports  of  the  Commission  itself. 

2.  The  different  portions  of  that  line  of  uncertain, 
approximate,  hypothetical  or  arbitrary  character,  were 
pointed  out  and  records  were  produced  of  another  line  that 
combined  with  the  first,  and  having  its  same  irregularities 
did  not  terminate  at  Punta  Mona  but  near  the  mouth  of 
Middle  Creek,  and  for  this  reason,  perhaps,  was  not 
included  or  marked  upon  the  maps  of  the  Commission. 

3.  As  a  consequence  of  this  demonstration,  it  is  now 
possible  to  state  the  corollary  to  be  drawn  therefrom. 

No  unity  of  agreement  whatever  exists  between  the,  maps 
and  the  reports  presented,  nor  is  there  any  unity  or  agreement 
found  to  exist  between  the  reports  and  the  data  obtained  for 
their  preparation. 

4.  These  categorical  conclusions  are  strong  enough  to 
destroy  the  arguments  against  the  facts  established,  and 
now  this  seems  the  proper  place  to  detail  the  causes  which 
have  influenced  their  appearance  in  the  report. 

That  is  the  purpose  of  the  present  chapter. 

5.  It  will  be  for  the  first  and  last  time,  contrary  to  the 
plan  followed  hitherto,  that  we  are  compelled  to  use  proofs 
derived  from  other  sources  than  those  from  which  all  our 
conclusions  have  been  taken.  It  could  not  be  otherwise, 
since  it  is,  indeed,  illogical  to  undertake  to  prove  an  irreg- 

(122) 


123 

ularity  by  the  same  irregularity;  a  theorem  cannot  be 
demonstrated  by  using  the  same  hypothesis  stated  in 
submitting  it. 

6.  As  a  prehminary,  however,  it  may  be  well  to  state 
that  the  proofs  about  to  be  offered  are  also  within  the 
knowledge  of  the  Commission  and  that  they  were  sub- 
mitted by  the  opposing  party,  Panama. 

7.  It  could  not  be  expected,  naturally,  that  Panama 
would  submit  documents  in  this  matter  that  were  favorable 
to  Costa  Rica.  Panama,  however,  did  put  into  the  hands 
of  the  Commission  the  results  of  its  own  investigations, 
its  plans  and  its  documents;  but  it  is  also  true  that  in  so 
doing  it  could  not  have  foreseen  the  use  to  which  they 
would  be  put  in  the  course  of  events ; — still  the  fact  is  that 
such  data  were  in  the  possession  of  the  Commission  and  if 
Costa  Rica  now  makes  use  of  them,  not  however  in  its 
own  favor  but  merely  to  show  the  reasons  for  the  irreg- 
ularity of  the  documents  of  the  Commission,  they  must 
be  admitted. 

8.  That  these  documents  to  which  reference  is  made 
were  in  the  possession  of  the  Commission  and  used  by  it, 
is  made  evident  by  the  detailed  citations  made  therefrom 
in  the  course  of  the  present  analyses. 

These  antecedents  having  been  settled,  let  us  now  get  to 
the  bottom  of  the  matter. 

9.  (a)  The  Commission  presented  a  line  of  the  North 
Divide  of  the  Sixaola  Basin,  measuring  148  kilometers^ 

(b)  Panama  submitted  to  the  Commission  the  plan  of 
the  line  claimed  by  it,  measuring  only  109  kilometers;  that 
is  to  say,  a  distance  of  39  kilometers  less.^ 


^See  the  longitudinal  profile  prepared  at  the  request  of  Panama 
and  without  the  knowledge  of  the  Honorable  Arbitrator,  as 
shown  in  Chapter  VII. 

-See  the  plan  by  Doctor  Don  Abel  Bravo,  of  December,  19 10. 


124 

10.  Whatever  that  hne  may  be  — the  one  offered  by  the 
Panama  Plan, — it  does  reveal  the  fact  that  it  followed  the 
crest  or  summit  of  a  cordillera,  which  in  its  lower  portion 
and  near  the  coast  coincided  exactly  with  that  of  the  Com- 
mission in  the  course  where  the  Commission  designated  it 
as  arbitrary  and  hypothetical',  but  from  Buena  Vista  this 
line  branched  off  and  ran  closer  to  the  vSixaola  and  Telire 
Rivers  until  Monte  Uren  was  reached. 

11.  This  Monte  Uren,  the  name  of  which  is  found  upon 
the  map  of  Senor  Peralta-,  is  situated  at  83°  29'  00"  longi- 
tude west  from  Greenwich  and  9°  38' north  latitude;  and 
upon  the  map  of  Petermann's  Mittheilungen,  year  1900, 
Plate  22,  at  83°  33'  00"  longitude  west  from  Greenwich 
and  9°  36'  north  latitude, — is  not  defined  as  being  the 
Chirripo  Grande  placed  by  the  Commission  at  83°  29'  38" 
west  of  Greenwich  and  9°  29'  2"  north  latitude,  for  the 
difference  in  latitude  is  very  considerable. 

12.  At  this  Monte  Uren  Panama  found  that  the  crest 
it  was  following  connected  with  the  Cordillera  desig- 
nated upon  its  map  under  the  name  of  "Cordillera  of 
Talamanca,"  at  the  end  of  the  109  kilometers  measured 
from  Punta  Mona;  whilst  the  maps  of  the  Commission 
connected  its  line  at  Chirripo  Grande  at  the  end  of  148 
kilometers  from  Punta  Mona. 

13.  As  has  been  already  stated,  it  could  not  be  expected 
that  Panama  would  offer  proofs  favorable  to  Costa  Rica, 
but  it  is  clear  that  such  line,  if  it  did  exist,  would  best 

*"  It  therefore  be  understood  that  ikere  is  no  actual,  permanent, 
natural  divide,  nor  parting  of  the  waters  across  swamp  A  *  *  *." 
Report  of  the  Commission,  p.  53. 

'^Peralta  :  Mapa  Ilistdrko  Gcogrdfico  dc  Costa  Rica  y  del 
Ducado  de  Veragua  (Historical-Geographical  Map  of  Costa 
Rica  and  of  the  Dukedom  of  Veragua),  by  Don  Manuel  M.  de 
Peralta;  Madrid,  1892.  Special  edition  for  the  Fourth  Cente- 
nary of  the  DiscoVeiy  of  America. 


125 

suit  Panama  if  it  were  as  long  as  possible,  just  as  it  would 
best  suit  Costa  Rica  if  it  were  the  shortest  possible,  as 
thus  each  one  would  obtain  the  most  territory. 

Nevertheless,  it  appears  that  the  survey  made  by 
Panama  was  in  December,  1910;  that  is,  some  months 
after  the  Treaty  of  Washington  was  celebrated  between 
the  plenipotentiaries,  Anderson  and  Porras;  and  when 
the  Engineer  commissioned  by  Panama — Dr.  Bravo — 
was  surveying  this  line,  he  knew  that  his  work  would  be 
carefully  examined  by  an  impartial  commission  of  experts 
provided  for  in  that  treaty,  so  that  he  had  every  reason 
for  seeking  to  execute  the  work  as  correctly  as  it  was 
possible  to  do  it. 

Doctor  Don  Abel  Bravo,  commissioned  for  that  purpose 
by  Panama,  undertook  those  investigations  with  the  aid 
of  a  French  Engineer,  M.  Lambert,  who  had  come  to  the 
Isthmus  during  the  period  the  French  Canal  Company 
was  at  work  there,  and  who  had  located  at  Bocas  del  Toro 
for  some  years.  These  two  competent  engineers,  both 
of  them  familiar  with  the  region,  determined  by  direct 
surveys,  using  the  chain,  that  the  distance  from  Punta 
Mona  to  Monte  Uren  was  109  kilometers.  Thus  measured 
and  laid  down  upon  their  map,  it  was  submitted  to  the 
Commission. 

14.  Notwithstanding  this,  the  Commission  deviated 
from  it  and  showed  the  distance  of  148  kilometers. 

15.  Neither  is  the  line  that  Panama  offered  approved, 
nor  is  it  admitted  that  it  should  be  heeded ;  on  the  con- 
trary the  facts  are  stated  simply  for  the  purpose  of  estab- 
lishing a  logical  comparison  between  them  and  deducing 
the  consequences  that  flow  therefrom.  If  the  plans  are 
laid  over  one  another,  the  Panama  Line  will  be  found 
to  lie,  in  its  upper  portion,  between  the  divide  delineated 
by  the  Commission  and  the  Rivers  Sixaola  and  Telire. 


126 


1 6.  For  greater  clearness,  the  following  statement  sum- 
marizes the  comparison: 


6. 


Panama  Line. 

In  its  lower  portion  it  co- 
incides with  that  of  the 
Commission. 

Panama  would  naturally 
be  partial  in  the  execu- 
tion of  its  surveys. 

Panama  did  the  work 
with  only  a  single  party 
in  the  field. 

Panama  proceeded  upon 
an  unbroken  course 
from  Buena  Vista  to 
the  Main  Cordillera. 

Panama  measured  its  dis- 
tances directly  with  the 
chain. 


Panama  Line. 

Panama  did  not  abandon 
its  continuous  line  to 
Monte  Uren,  where  it 
declared  it  found  the 
connection  with  the 
Main  Cordillera  of  the 
crest  it  was  surveying. 


Commission  Line. 

1 .  In  its  lower  portion  it  co- 

incides with  that  of 
Panama. 

2 .  The  Commission  must  be 

impartial  in  the  execu- 
tion of  its  surveys. 

3.  The  Commission  did  the 

work  with  four  parties 
in  the  field. 

4.  The  course  of  the  Com- 

mission was  broken  be- 
tween Buena  Vista  and 
the  Main  Cordillera. 

5.  The   Commission   meas- 

ured its  distances  in- 
directly, by  calcula- 
tion and  some  courses 
by  trigonometrical 
means  and  others  by 
estimating  distances 
by  the  time  taken  to 
traverse  them. 

Commission  Line. 

6.  The      Commission     did 

abandon  its  continu- 
ous line,  and  went  to 
San  Jose  de  CostaRica 
to  undertake  it  at  the 
other  extreme,  and  by 
a  hypothesis  fixing 
there  the  connection 
with  the  Main  Cordil- 
lera. 


127 

1 7-  It  is  not  strange  that  after  this  accumulation  of 
irregularities  so  great  a  difference  was  finally  reached 
between  the  two  distances. 

Such  an  assemblage  of  mixed  data  could  lead  to  nothing 
else  but  to  mistake  the  facts  and,  at  least,  to  exhibit  them, 
in  a  veiled  and  covered  form. 

1 8.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  every  one  knows  that  uniform 
procedure  in  surveys  is  the  best  guaranty  of  accuracy. 
The  longitude  of  one  of  the  railway  lines  from  Washington 
to  New  York  would  of  course  be  more  correct  if  its  meas- 
urement was  verified  by  a  direct  and  uniform  procedure 
than  if  it  were  done  by  sections,  using  indirect  means  and 
even  taking  as  to  some  portions  the  method  of  determining 
the  distance  by  the  time  it  took  a  roadman  to  traverse 
them. 

That  is  just  what  occurred  in  the  case  of  these  two  sur- 
veys, one  made  by  order  of  Panama  and  the  other  by  the 
Commission. 

19.  Let  it  be  repeated  that  the  measures  of  Panama 
are  not  accepted;  they  are  cited  solely  for  the  purpose  of 
comparing  them  with  those  of  the  Commission.  These, 
likewise,  are  not  accepted. 

20.  As  may  be  seen  by  the  Minutes  (Appendix  No.  i), 
the  Commission  stopped  without  finishing  the  studies  it  was 
pursuing  upon  the  left  side  of  the  Sixaola,  and  it  moved 
to  San  Jose  de  Costa  Rica  to  take  them  up  anew  from  a 
point  that  it  made  the  terminus  of  a  spur  by  a  hypothesis 
as  untenable  as  the  others. 

21.  It  is  evident  at  once  that  it  was  practically  quite 
impossible  to  know  whether  that  extremity  which  it  had 
assumed  was  or  was  not  the  terminus  of  the  spur  that  it 
had  stopped  studying, — no  one  knew  if  it  were,  nor  could 
they  know.     It  pointed  this  out  in  its  declaration  very 


128 

positively,  when  it  said:   "*     *     *     that  divide,  if  such 
divide  exists.'" 

22.  For  such  a  change  to  have  been  legal  and  allowable, 
and  for  the  connection  of  the  two  extremities  of  the  line  to 
have  been  justified,  it  would  have  been  necessary  and 
indispensable : 

(i)  To  determine  exactly  the  astronomical  situ- 
ation of  a  point  of  the  line  or  of  its  extremity  on  the 
left  side  of  the  Sixaola; 

(2)  To  determine  in  like  manner  the  astronomical 
situation  of  a  point  on  the  line  begun  on  the  side  of 
San  Jose  de  Costa  Rica;  and 

(3)  To  connect  the  extremities  of  the  two  lines, 
correctly  calculated  in  azimuth  and  distance  from 
the  points  astronomically  fixed. 

23.  Quite  the  contrary  appears  to  have  been  the  case; 
none  of  these  three  operations  were  performed,  instead, 
the  connection  was  made  by  the  use  of  approximate  and 
uncertain  lines,  the  very  start  from  the  extremity  of  the 
upper  part  of  the  line  being  altogether  hypothetical. 

24.  That  is  the  reason  for  the  great  discrepancy  be- 
tween the  two  lines  and  indeed  for  the  grave  error  of  the 
Commission. 

25.  The  line  that  Panama  drew  is  not  admissible  under 
any  theory,  but  this  line  along  the  summit  of  a  cordillera 
lying  quite  near  to  the  Sixaola  and  Telire  rivers  and 
their  valleys,  is  an  indication  of  the  existence  of  another 
high  and  elevated  range  between  the  one  traced  by  the 
Commission  and  the  same  rivers,  at  the  foot  of  which 
would  then  be  the  line  that  closes  the  valley  upon  the 
north. 


'Report  of  the  Commission,  p.  5; 


129 

26.  The  accompanying  map  Plate  No.  VII  shows  a 
drawing  of  the  two  Hnes; — the  outside  one,  with  a  black 
line,  two  black  Hnes,  two  broken  lines  and  an  ending  of 
dashes,  is  the  one  delineated  by  the  Commission; — while 
the  inside  one,  traced  with  a  line  made  up  of  dots  and 
dashes,  is  the  one  drawn  by  Panama. 

27.  It  has  been  demonstrated  that  the  one  of  the  Com- 
mission is : 

(i)  Approximate  from  the  coast  to  a  point  situated 
at  82°  29'  3"  longitude  west  of  Greenwich  and  9°  t,^'  9" 
north  latitude. 

(2)  Imaginary  and  arbitrary  from  Punta  Mona  to 
Point  A. 

(3)  Uncertain  from  D-629  to  A-2511 ; — and 

(4)  Arbitrary  again  from  A-2511  to  Chirripo 
Grande. 

28.  The  comparison  made  of  the  two  lines  that  have 
been  drawn  reveals  to  us  therefore  the  fact  that  from 
Point- A,  the  location  of  which  is  82°  40'  45"  west  of  Green- 
wich and  9°  36'  north  latitude,  to  Buena  Vista,  the  C9m- 
mission  Line  is  almost  the  same,  with  some  insignificant 
variations,  as  the  one  delineated  by  the  Engineer  Bravo, 
as  also  is  the  hypothetical  and  arbitrary  section  that  ter- 
minates at  Punta  Mona;  but  from  Buena  Vista  two  lines 
appear,  the  divergence  of  which  is  notable ;  the  one  by  the 
Commission  farther  to  the  north  and  the  one  of  Panama 
farther  to  the  south  and  closer  to  the  Rivers  Sixaola  and 
Telire. 

29.  It  is  evident  that  arguments  by  one  of  the  parties  that 
are  not  based  upon  data  submitted  by  the  experts  (the  Com- 
mission) are  without  any  force  before  the  Honorable  Arbi- 
trator, but  if  these  arguments  are  employed  by  the  oppo- 
site party  they  become  proofs  of  the  highest  order  and  of 


130 

as  much  force  and  value  as  those  presented  by  the  Com- 
mission itself.  That  is  just  the  case  here :  the  line  claimed 
by  Panama,  one  of  the  interested  parties,  is  shorter  and 
lies  inside  the  one  that  the  experts  indicated.  Such  a 
situation,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  makes  both  of  the  lines 
doubtful;  that  of  Panama  as  being  biased  and  that  of 
the  Commission  on  account  of  having  neglected  to  con- 
sider the  Cordillera  crest  that  appears  to  run  parallel  to 
the  one  traced  by  it  and  nearer  and  closer  to  the  Rivers 
Sixaola  and  Telire;  that  is  to  say,  more  in  accord  with 
the  conditions  imposed  upon  the  Commission. 

30.  There  was  a  neglect  to  characterize  the  portion  to 
which  we  have  alluded  among  all  the  anomaUes  as  to  the 
other  sections  of  this  line,  but  Panama  has  come  to  our 
aid  in  its  designation  and  to  establish  with  as  much  effect 
as  the  admissions  of  the  Commission  that  the  portion 
between  Buena  Vista  and  Station  D-629  constitutes  a 
doubtful  section. 

31.  It  is  therefore  worth  while  to  complete  the  state- 
ment made  in  Paragraph  27  above,  by  the  following 
addition. 

The  supposed  North  divide  of  the  Commission  begins 
at  a  point  the  co-ordinates  of  which  are:  82°  34'  38" 
longitude  west  of  Greenwich  and  9°  35'  north  latitude, 
and  it  ends  at  Chirripo  at  83°  29'  30"  longitude  west 
of  Greenwich  and  9°  29'  30"  north  latitude.'  That  line 
is  made  up  as  shown  on  the  following  page. 

(i)  Report  of  the  Commission,  page  53. 


131 


o 
o 

u 


d    r 

CO  ^^ 

a  o 

d 
o 
h4 


c3 
h4 


CflO 

d 
o 


o 


w    M    rO  "^  <0 


ON  o  cs  t^  ^ 

%oo  o  "^  o^ 

CO  fO  "^  ^  <^ 
o    o    o    o    o 

On  On  On  0\  0^ 


i     lo  O   >o  O 
fo  ^  o  -^  f^ 


a\  O  r^  >o  On 

CO  -^  ^-i    C^    ^ 


C«    <N    rO  fO  ro 

00  00  00  00  00 


O   O   »o  O 
o)   O   c^   c^ 


lOQO  \D    O    -^ 
ro  to  CO  "^  fO 


On  0\  On  ON  0\ 


00    O    >0  O    "P 

CO  CO  -^  O    "^ 


CO  CO  "^  i-i 


cs    c^    oi    ro  CO 

00  00  00  00  CO 


§l^d 

CU  as   5 


d 


o 


w    M    CO  •^  "^ 


'^   . 

^    r^ 

»o  t~^ 

^\ri 

^d 

a  Ph 

d  d 

d"  d*" 

.2  "= 

o  o 

11 

e  B 

^§ 

o  o 

• 

o  o 

uu 

OS 

a 

as 

d 

"1 

oo 

o  o 

p^ 

o  o 

-*->  -•-> 

«+-! 

+J  -JJ 

Th     )-< 

u   u 

o  o 
a.  &. 

& 

o  o 

oT  0) 

,-4        «        CC 


132 

32.  This  shows  how  the  documents  presented  by 
Panama  have  come  to  constitute  the  most  eloquent  proof 
of  the  errors  in  the  course  followed  by  the  Commission, 
because  they  are  not  only  evidence  of  those  errors  but 
they  point  out  and  indicate  the  reason  why  they  orignated. 
Panama  could  not  enter  into  the  territory  at  San  Jose  to 
assume,  as  the  Commission  did  assume,  the  extreme  point 
of  the  supposed  divide  line  and  for  that  reason  its  investi- 
gation was  continued  from  its  beginning  at  Buena  Vista 
to  its  ending  at  Uren. 

33.  The  reasons  stated  have  also  justified  the  use  of 
the  arguments  foreign  to  the  Report  of  the  Engineers 
but  not  foreign  to  the  subject  under  discussion.  . 


CHAPTER  IX. 


THE  DIVIDE  BETWEEN  THE  WATERSHEDS  OF  THE 
TWO  OCEANS. 

1.  The  preceding  chapters  have  been  devoted  exclu- 
sively to  the  analysis  of  the  supposed  divide  limiting  the 
Sixaola  Basin  upon  the  north  and  the  conclusions  of  the 
previous  chapter  have  summed  up  the  prior  ones  and 
demonstrated  the  mistakes  of  the  Commission,  as  well  as 
shown  the  cause  and  source  of  those  mistakes. 

The  present  chapter  will  analyze  the  divide  traced  by 
the  Commission,  supposed  by  it  to  separate  the  water- 
sheds of  the  two  oceans. 

2 .  It  should  be  mentioned  here  that  the  corollary  stated 
in  paragraph  3  of  Chapter  VIII,  resulting  from  the  exam- 
ination of  the  Sixaola  divide,  is  not  applicable  to  this  divi- 
sion. On  the  contrary  there  is  as  to  this  divide  a  uni- 
formity in  the  proceedings  of  the  Commission,  more  unity 
and  a  great  degree  of  harmony  between  the  maps  and  the 
reports,  both  of  these  characterizing  it  with  the  frank  and 
honest  statement  of  the  truth — ' '  This  section  is  approxi- 
mate and  uncertain."^ 

3.  Inde,ed,  it  was  demonstrated  by  unquestionable  data 
that  the  ending  of  the  divide  at  Chirripo  Grande  was  in 
no  way  justified.  The  Commission  arbitrarily  assumed 
that  point,  as  it  could  have  assumed  any  other  whatever 
in  that  region,  and  the  course  of  three  kilometers  only 
which  was  run  toward  the  northwest  from  Chirripo  is  a 
proof  of  its  arbitrary  character. 

^Report  of  the  Commission,  top  of  page  57. 

(133) 


134 

4-  In  the  same  way  it  was  seen  that  the  paramo  or  high 
plateau  which  was  attained  at  Chirrip6  Grande,  not  by 
any  means  in  a  continuous  or  uniform  manner,  for  the 
work  was  stopped  and  the  entire  outfit  engaged  in  the 
survey  transferred  to  San  Jose  de  Costa  Rica,  was 
wide  and  extensive  and  it  was  discussed  enough  to  make 
it  evident  that  this  point  was  an  arbitrary  one.  There 
would  have  been  no  need  for  all  this  argument  inasmuch 
as  the  Commission  itself  proclaimed  the  fact,  when  it  said 
that"*  *  *  the  line  from  Chirripo  Grande  to  Durika 
is  uncertain.     *     *     *"^ 

5.  It  is  proper  to  observe,  now,  the  mathematical  con- 
tradiction in  which  the  Commission  fails  in  speaking  of 
the  accuracy  in  the  tracing  of  the  North  Divide :  It  states 
on  page  54  that :  "The  remainder  of  the  divide  is  drawn  as 
a  continuous  line  indicating  that  it  is  known  with  a  con- 
siderable degree  of  accuracy," — this  line  is  marked  thus  at 
Chirripo  Grande — and  three  pages  further  on — top  of  page 
57 — it  says  that:  "*  *  *  in  the  portion  from  C/tfm/?o 
Grande  to  Durika  and  from  Dome  to  Cerro  Pando,  where 
there  is  some  uncertainty  as  to  the  location  *  *  *" 
i.  e.,  Chirripo  Grande  is  certain  for  the  extremity  of  the 
line  and  at  the  same  time  uncertain  for  the  beginning  of 
the  other,  which  is  its  continuation. 

6.  It  would  be  of  no  consequence  that  the  section  from 
Durika  to  Dome  were  correctly  localized,  if  it  did  not 
appear  joined  in  a  satisfactory  way  to  the  two  extremi- 
ties of  the  divide. 

7.  The  map  of  Dr.  Bravo,  a  document  submitted  by 
Panama,  raises  again  a  doubt  in  this  respect;  the  Main 
Cordillera  is  called  here  "Cordillera  de  Talamanca"  and 
starts,  in  this  map,  from  Monte  Uren,  where  the  crest  that  , 

'See  the  conventional  signs  on  map  No.  i,  sheet  No.  i. 


135 

begins  at  Buena  Vista  terminates.  This  Panamanian  line 
is  enclosed  by  the  uncertain  divide  drawn  by  the  Com- 
mission and  as  the  one  is  biased  by  reason  of  being  sub- 
mitted by  one  of  the  parties  (Panama)  and  the  other  is 
uncertain  according  to  the  declaration  made  by  the  Com- 
mission itself,  it  is  not  possible  to  solve  the  question  and 
it  ought  to  be  left  as  an  acknowledged  uncertainty. 

8.  It  would  not  be  proper  to  allege  that  the  examination 
and  preparation  of  the  Panama  map  was  wrong,  just 
because  so  great  a  difference  existed  between  the  two 
courses.  It  has  been  shown  that  the  surveys  by  Panama 
were  more  methodical  and  more  uniform  than  those  made 
by  the  Commission,  and  consequently,  in  case  of  a  dis- 
crepancy, the  probabilities  are  very  much  greater  in  favor 
of  the  correctness  of  the  Panama  map,  more  particularly 
as  on  the  very  face  of  the  one  made  by  the  Commission 
there  is  the  confession  of  uncertainty,  whilst  the  Panama 
map  does  not  suggest  any  doubt. 

9.  The  portion  between  Durika  and  Dome  was  sur- 
veyed by  the  Commission  sending  a  field  party  by  Punta 
Arenas  (Costa  Rica)  to  Boruca,  upon  the  Pacific  side; 
and  thence  this  field  party  proceeded  by  a  trail  to- 
wards the  Cordillera,  as  far  as  "Cruz  del  Obispo"  (the 
Bishop's  Cross),  a  camping  place  of  our  well  remembered 
Bishop  of  Costa  Rica,  Dr.  B.  A.  Thiel;  but  from  here  the 
investigations  to  one  side  and  the  other  of ' '  Cru:-  del  Obispo ' ' 
concerning  the  ridge  or  crest  of  the  Cordillera  did  not 
extend  beyond  Durika  upon  the  west  and  Dome  upon  the 
east. 

10.  The  very  situation  of  the  extremity  delineated  by 
the  Commission  is  uncertain.  The  words  used  "Possibly 
Cerro  Pando,"  indicate  a  probability,  nothing  more,  but 
no  certainty. 


136 

1 1 .  This  point  seems  to  be  one  of  vital  importance,  if 
it  is  considered  that  the  error  as  to  its  situation,  as  the 
Report  of  the  Engineers  certifies  (p.  59),  is  greater  in  an 
east  to  west  direction  than  in  the  north  to  south  direction, 
for  since  the  upper  end  of  the  southern  frontier  is  not  fixed, 
there  would  be  left  between  the  two  countries  a  territory 
that  might  be  of  considerable  extent,  without  any  frontier 
line,  nor  any  way  to  mark  it. 

SUMMARY    OF   THE    DOCUMENTS    PRESENTED    BY 
THE  COMMISSION. 

1 .  After  all  of  these  papers  have  been  studied  with  due 
attention,  it  is  not  dif!icult  to  formulate  a  summary  of 
them. 

2.  The  Report  arid  the  Maps  of  the  Commission  are 
distinguished  by  three  essential  characteristics: 

The  first  is  what  they  appear  to  say ; 

The  second  is  what  they  really  mean;  and 

The  third  is  what  they  ought  to  state  and  to  mean. 


The  first  characteristic  does  not  need  any  comments. 

But,  as  it  has  been  pointed  out,  in  accordance  with  all 
the  proofs  established,  the  submerged  divide  which  ends 
at  Punta  Mona  MUST  BE  WITHDRAWN  FROM  THE 
MAPS;  IT  BEING  A  CREATION  OF  THE  COM- 
MISSION AND  NOT  A  FACT  OF  NATURE. 

II. 

3.  The  result  of  the  analysis  demonstrates  the  second. 
vSufficient  data  are  to  be  found  in  the  documents  to 


137 

establish  the  facts,  as  they  have  been  established,  and 
at  the  same  time  there  are  data  enough  to  annul  and 
destroy  those  arguments  presented  which  are  not  in 
accordance  with  the  actual  facts. 

4.  The  truth  is  always  to  be  found  if  we  go  to  the  bottom 
of  a  question,  and  the  contradictions  that  appear  are 
explained  by  the  same  citations  and  data  furnished. 

5.  The  Commission  could  not  have  established  the 
irregularities  affecting  its  studies  and  the  maps  of  the 
Sixaola  and  Telire  divides  any  more  honestly,  nor  could  it 
have  been  less  frank  in  its  expression  in  considering  the 
results  of  its  examination  of  the  divide  between  the  two 
oceans,  than  it  did  in  stating  that  it  was  left  uncertain. 

6.  Incapacitated  by  those  very  irregularities,  it  would 
not  proceed  to  formulate  the  answer  to  the  questions  pro- 
pounded by  the  two  countries — not  for  lack  of  data  col- 
lected, but  for  want  of  a  method  for  their  analysis. 

7.  The  Commission  from  its  inception  being  led  by  the 
erroneously  preconceived  idea  of  a  divide,  at  the  very 
outset  upset  the  methodical  plan  that  would  have  con- 
duced to  the  establishment  of  the  truth  without  any  cir- 
cumlocution, in  a  clear-  and  definite  way.  The  Sixaola 
divide,''*  *  *  if  such  divide  exists  *  *  *, "  always 
was  and  it  will  be  one  of  the  things  perhaps  least  needed 
in  the  whole  question,  but  this  secondary  and  insignificant 
matter  was  considered  by  the  Commission  as  the  sole  and 
only  object  of  its  investigations.  This  was  the  basic  reason 
for  all  of  its  mistakes. 

8.  The  effort  to  give  credit  to  an  unjustifiable  hypothe- 
sis, laying  down  a  priori  a  theory  so  foreign  to  the  question 


138 

and  trying  to  convert  it  into  the  object  of  the  question 
itself,  notwithstanding  all  the  probability  to  the  contrary, 
and  despite  the  clearness  and  conciseness  of  the  conditions 
and  documents  within  the  control  of  the  Commission 
indicating  that  it  should  be  an  analytical  investigation, 
devoid  of  any  preconceived  element,  led  it  to  deductions 
at  variance  with  the  real  significance  of  the  facts,  but 
which  it  has  been  easy  to  demolish  with  the  same  trust- 
worthy data  that  appear  in  the  papers  themselves. 

III. 

9.  In  the  preceding  paragraph  the  intimation  was  made 
for  the  first  time  of  the  reason  for  all  the  mistakes  pointed 
out  in  the  analysis,  and  that  was  the  method  adopted. 

10.  The  Commission  well  knew  the  subject  matter  upon 
which  it  was  to  give  an  expert  opinion  and  the  causes  that 
had  given  rise  thereto.  This  appears  from  the  data  that 
it  communicated  and  is  shown  by  the  first  35  pages  in  its 
report.  Therein  may  be  found  the  whole  of  the  original 
IvOubet  Award,  the  Anderson-Porras  Treaty,  the  questions 
propounded  by  the  two  countries  and  the  plan  under  which 
the  investigations  were  to  be  made.  This  plan  held 
already  in  embryo  the  bad  system  adopted  by  the  Com- 
mission, and  indeed  paragraph  (a)  of  that  plan  said  :^ 

"A  topographical  survey  from  Punta  Mona  along 
the  divide  which  is  the  north  limit  of  the  drainage 
area  of  the  Tarire  or  Sixaola  River  to  its  junction  with 
the  Main  Cordillera." 

1 1 .  This  first  clause  of  Plan  V,  which  seems  to  give  to  it 
the  character  of  a  study  or  investigation,  is  correct,  but 
not  as  the  basis  and  admitted  object,  not  as  an  accom- 

' Report  of  the  Commission,  p.  12. 


139 

plished  fact  which  it  should  be  sought  to  demonstrate  by 
the  use  of  every  sort  of  argument  and  even  imaginary 
suppositions. 

12.  The  Commission,  in  the  discharge  of  its  duties  and 
having  proved  that  Punta  Mona  is  isolated  by  an  enor- 
mous swamp,  that  separates  it  from  the  rest  of  the  main 
land,  ought  to  have  stopped  there  so  far  as  regards  clause 
(a)  of  said  report  (p.  12),  establishing  the  fact  that  no 
divide  starts  from  Punta  Mona,  but  that  this  locality  is 
found  upon  a  basin  foreign  to  that  of  the  Sixaola, 
and  not  even  contiguous  thereto,  for  that  might  give  rise 
to  doubt  and  still  more,  if  any  divide  did  exist  there,  that 
divide  is  not  the  one  that  limits  upon  the  north  the  basin 
of  the  Sixaola. 

13.  On  the  contrary,  however,  the  Commission,  instead 
of  all  this,  settled  a  priori  as  existing  in  fact  what  it  ought 
to  have  studied  and  proved,  whether  it  did  exist  or  not; 
and  hence  the  origin  of  all  its  irregularities  and  mistakes. 

14.  The  Commission  changed  the  subject  of  study  into 
the  basis  of  study.  Clause  (a)  of  Plan  V,  cited  (p.  12, 
Report  of  the  Commission) ,  was  a  subject  proposed,  not  an 
admitted  conclusion.  As  a  subject  or  theory  it  was  allow- 
able; but  not  as  a  conclusion  or  fact.  This  clause  was 
headed:  "The  survey  is  to  embrace  *  *  *":  the  plan 
did  not  say,  "     *     *     *     it  is  a  fact  that     *     *     *." 

15.  It  has,  then,  been  purely  a  question  of  method, 
and  if  instead  of  taking  the  supposed  divide  for  granted,  the 
Commission  had  devoted  its  efforts  to  investigating  the 
reality  or  the  supposition  of  the  fact  stated,  it  would  then 
have  proceeded  in  compliance  with  its  duties. 

16.  The  course  taken  by  our  studies  of  this  matter  has 
brought  out  the  continuous  tendency  that  is  noted  in  the 
documents,  to  try  to  establish  such  a  divide,  contrary  to  the 


140 

real  facts,  even  going  so  far  as  to  employ  an  erroneous  and 
false  hypothesis,  shown  to  be  so  by  the  very  data  furnished 
by  the  Commission  itself. 

17.  If  instead  of  considering  as  demonstrated  what  it 
should  have  taken  up  as  something  to  be  demonstrated, 
the  Commission  had  proceeded  in  an  analytical  way  to 
search  for  the  truth,  its  methods  and  conclusions  would 
have  been  altogether  different.  To  get  the  topographyoj 
the  entire  territory  and  from  it  deduce  all  the  facts  as  they  really 
and  actually  exist;  that  was  the  whole  of  its  mission,  in 
its  double  character,  technical  and  expert;  but  from 
the  very  moment  that  it  devoted  itself,  without  regard 
to  the  means,  arguments  or  the  hypotheses  used,  to  the 
effort  to  demonstrate  one  of  the  things  presented  solely  for 
investigation,  treating  it  as  it  were  an  accomplished  fact, 
the  Commission  disregarded  its  duty  and  converted  itself 
into  an  advocate,  getting  away  from  the  question. 

18.  It  is  true  that  this  question  was  proposed  by 
Panama,  but  it  was  in  conditional  terms.  Panama  said:^ 
"If  any  such  branch,  secondary  divide  or  counterfort 
exists  *  *  *  ",  a  phraseology  of  which  the  Commission 
also  made  use  when  it  stated  "*  *  *  if  such  divide 
exists  *  *  *",^  and  saying  this  too  after  all  the  inves- 
tigations that  had  been  made  which  should  have  developed 
whether  it  did  or  not  exist. 

19.  The  object  of  all  this  conditional  part,  like  all  the 
others  of  the  questions  submitted,  was  to  have  the  Com- 
mission establish  or  reject  it ; — to  either  accept  it  in  view  of 
the  data  that  might  be  secured  in  its  favor,  or  deny  its 
correctness  after  considering  all  the  facts  opposed  to  it; 
but   contrary   to   what   was   expected,    the   Commission 

'Report  of  the  Commission,  bottom  of  page  21. 
-Report  of  the  Commission,  p.  55  (![  2). 


141 

assumed  its  existence  as  certain,  without  any  premises 
authorizing  it,  although  the  party  interested  sumbitted  it 
as  doubtful. 

20.  The  logic  of  these  facts  is  so  irresistible,  that  the 
arguments  would  be  the  same  if  the  Commission  instead  of 
assuming  as  an  accomplished  fact  one  of  the  things  pre- 
sented in  a  conditional  form  by  Panama,  had  taken  up  one 
of  those  submitted  by  Costa  Rica.  For  example,  it  would 
not  have  been  admissible  for  the  Commission  to  have  per- 
sisted in  an  effort  to  demonstrate  the  nonexistence  of  the 
supposed  spur,  if  in  order  to  do  so  it  became  necessary  to 
have  recourse  to  pre-historic  hypotheses  in  the  field  of 
geology  or  to  those  common  to  the  present  epoch.  That 
was  the  manner  in  which  it  did  proceed, — in  the  first  case 
under  the  theory  of  a  submergence  and  in  the  second  under 
the  erroneous  supposition  of  an  inundation,  in  the  attempt . 
to  arrive  at  a  demonstration  that  fell  by  its  own  weight 
and  could  not  resist  the  slightest  analysis. 

21.  The  recourse  to  hypotheses  is  excluded  in  expert 
opinions. 

22.  As  already  stated,  the  greatest  source  of  error  was 
the  method  adopted.  In  order  to  secure  all  the  requisite 
data  the  Commission  was  called  upon  to  furnish,  the  logi- 
cal and  impartial  procedure  would  have  been  to  once  hav- 
ing shown  the  course  of  the  Sixaola,  to  take  cross  sections 
at  convenient  intervals,  perpendicular  to  the  axis  of  the 
current  of  the  river.  No  opinions  would  thus  have  been 
advanced  nor  hypotheses  offered,  either  ancient  or  modern^ 
but  with  the  simple  facts  that  were  collected  it  would  have 
been  easy  to  answer  the  questions  propounded  and  ta 
state  the  real  and  actual  facts  regarding  the  region.  Those 
cross  sections  could  have  been  prolonged  as  far  as  the 
divides,  if  it  were  desired,  without  relying  upon  any  data 


142 

or  document  offered  by  either  one  of  the  parties,  which  the 
Commission  had  the  right  to  disregard  and  was  even  under 
obUgation  to  put  aside,  as  dangerously  compromising  its 
impartiality  in  the  discharge  of  its  duty. 

23.  It  is  proper  to  say  here,  at  the  conclusion  of  this 
third  division,  that  the  first  reading  of  the  opinion  of  the 
Commission  was  a  source  of  real  surprise.  A  frank  and 
ingenuous  statement  of  the  facts  had  been  expected: 
In  a  paper  entitled  '^The  Manzanillo  Basin"  and  prepared 
on  the  14th  of  May  of  last  year,  after  making  the  general 
statement,  the  writer  said : 

"From  the  foregoing  allegations,  which  will  appear 
in  all  their  fullness  and  detail  in  the  work  and  reports 
of  the  Commission,  the  following  facts  are  evident: 

1 .  That  the  place  called  Punta  Mona  is  found  to  be 
situated  upon  a  watershed  directly  upon  the  ocean, 
characterized  by  rivers  of  this  second  basin  or  water- 
shed, being  absolutely  independent  of  the  basins  of 
the  Sixaola  and  the  North  River. 

2.  That  the  foregoing  conclusion  establishes  with- 
out any  question  that  no  line  that  starts  from  Punta 
Mona  can  reach,  in  any  direction  it  may  be  traced, 
any  valley  or  any  other  place  that  directly  or  indi- 
rectly belongs  to  the  River  Sixaola,  without  first 
cutting  and  traversing  this  second  watershed,  en- 
tirely foreign  to  the  watershed  or  basin  of  the 
Sixaola." 

.  The  paper  ended  as  follows : 

"The  investigations  that  are  now  being  carried  on 
by  the  surveying  Commission  will  show  the  perfect 
distinction  between  the  basin  of  the  Sixaola  and  that 
of  Manzanillo." 


143 

24-  Assuredly,  to  these  very  conclusions  we  have  in 
the  end  arrived,  not,  however,  as  had  been  expected,  in  the 
form  of  a  clear  and  precise  statement,  but  by  means  of  a 

well  founded  criticism  and  by  \h^  force  of  the  facts. 

LUIS  MATAMOROS, 
Consulting  Engineer  of  Costa  Rica. 

Washington,  D,  C.  September  19,  19 13. 


INDEX  OF  PLATES. 


Plate  No.  I. — Map  showing  the  territory  personally  examined 
by  the  Geologist.     Chapter  I,  sects.  5,  10. 

Plate  No.  II. — A  map  based  on  those  of  the  Commission  of 
Engineers,  showing  the  main  points  and  lines  discussed,  and 
the  line  which  closes  on  the  north  the  valley  of  the  Sixaola 
River.  Chapter  II,  sects.  40,  55,  59,  65.  Chapter  III,  sects. 
20,  30.     Chapter  V,  sect.  40. 

Plate  No.  III. — Map  showing  the  only  data  taken  by  the 
Commision  of  Engineers  at  Punta  Mona  and  surroundings. 
Chapter  V,  sect.  4.     Chapter  VI,  sects.  12,  17. 

Plate  No.  IV. — Lines  drawn  by  Dr.  Abel  Bravo  and  the  Com- 
mission of  Engineers.  (Near  Punta  Mona).  Chapter  V, 
sects.  13,  34. 

Plate  No.  V. — Bravo's  map.  Chapter  V,  sects.  13,  14,  34. 
Chapter  VIII,  sect.  7. 

Plate  No.  VI. — Map  showing  the  line  suppressed  by  the  Com- 
mission and  the  line  substituted  therefor.  Chapter  VI,  sects. 
20,  29. 

Plate  No.  VII.  Map  showing  two  lines  from  Punta  Mona  to 
Chirrip6  Grande  and  to  Monte  Uren  drawn  respectively  by 
the  Commission  of  Engineers  and  Dr.  Abel  Bravo,  Consulting 
Engineer  of  Panama.     Chapter  VIII,  sect.  26. 

Plate  No.  VIII. — Profile  of  the  traverse  line  that  follows  a 
permanent  divide  to  the  mouth  of  Middle  Creek,  together 
with  the  profile  of  the  hypothetical  line  arbitrarily  drawn 
across  swamp  A.     Chapter  VI,  sect.  ;^3. 

(H4) 


INDEX. 

Chap.  Sec. 

Andes,  Cordillera V  i 

Antillite,  de  Gabb IV  Q.  XIV 

Appendices  to  General  Report II  2 

No.  3 V  9 

Approximate  course V  23,32 

IV  5,  Q.  IV 

"  and  uncertain  divide IX  2 

Arbitrary  course IV  5,  Q.  IV. 

"         and  hypothetical  line II  10,  11,  15,  18, 

21,  39 

IV  8,  Q.  I 

Arbitrator,  Honorable II  11,27, 

VII 

"  President  of  France II  9,  1 1, 

Area  explored  by  the  Geologist I  3,  4,  10 

Ashmead,  Commissioner V  11 

Award,  French II 1 1,  42,  45,  50,  56 

Basic,  rocks IV        4,  Q.  II 

Basin,  Sixaola IV        4,  Q.  IV 

II  27,43,46 

Boyd,  Senor  Doctor VII  6,  7 

Books,  Field  (Party  A) V  i 

Bravo,  Doctor  Abel V  i,  2,  14,  16 

VIII  9,  28,  plate  V 

VI  14 

Buena  Vista  IV  4,  5,  Q.  I 

IV  6,  Q.  IV 

IV  3,  Q.  VIII 
(145) 


146 


Chap.  Sec. 

Buena  Vista II  57 

VIII  28 

Cana  La  Creek Ill  8 

Cerro  Doble IV  4,  Q.  X 

Cerro  Pando,  situation  of IV  i,  Q.  Ill 

IV  3,Q.V 

IV  2,  Q.  VI 

IX  5 
Counterfort II 

IV  6,  Q.  IV 

Cordillera,  Main IV  2,  3,  Q.  I 

IX  7 

IV  4,Q.1V 

IV  3.  Q.  II 

Cross  Sections Ill  i,  2 

Cuabre IV  3,  Q.  X 

.    "  II  60, 

Chirripo  Grande II  66 

IV  3.  Q-  I 

IV  I,  Q.  VI 

IX  3.4,5 

Divide  hypothetical II  5 

"      Main IV  4,  Q.  IV 

"      which  is  the  north  limit  of  the  area 
which  drains  into  the  Atlantic  further 

south  than  Punta  Mona II  15,  29,  38,  39 

"      limiting  upon  the  north  the  Sixaola 

basin IV  3,  Q.  I 

"      of  the  two  oceans IX  i 

uncertain II  64 

Documents,  summary  of  the IX 

Dome IX  5,  6,  9 

IV  i,Q.  Ill 

Doubtful  portion VIII  30 

Durika Ill  28 


147 

Chap.  Sec. 

Durika IV  6,  Q.  IV 

IX  5, 6 

Equation  of  lines VI  13 

Evanston II  5,8 

Evaporation I  16 

Explanation  as  to  the  tracing  of  the  line  that 
closes   the   Valley   of  Sixaola  upon   the 

north Ill  I 

Facts,  furnished  by  the  reports I  21 

"      observed  in  situ II  4 

"     established  by  the  Geologist I  18,  19 

Field  books  of  the  Party  A V  i 

French  Award II  1 1,  38 

Gabb,  Wm IV  i,  Q.  II 

Gadokan  Creek I  12,  13,  14 

II  13,  22,  23,  26, 

29»  34.  36. 

III  8 

IV  7.  Q-I 
"            "                                                     V  24 

Geological  investigations,  Punta  Mona  ex- 
cluded from I  4 

Geologist,  area  explored  by  the I  10 

limits  of  the  territory  personally 

explored  by  the I  2,  3,  4 

hypothesis  of  the IV  4,  Q.  XIV 

opinion  of  the I  11 

Grape  Point,  Punta  Uva IV  3,  Q.  VIII 

IV  3,  QXII 

IV  10,  Q.  I 

Guabito II  25 

Hodgdon,  Commissioner II  12,  22,  28,  34 

IV  I,  Q.  X 

IV  2,  Q.  XIV 


148 


Chap. 
Hypothetical  line II 

divide IV 

Hypothesis  of  the  Geologist IV 

Hypothesis V 

Imaginary  portion IV 

V 
Limits   of   the   territory  explored   by   the 

Geologist I 

Line  north  divide VIII 

"    which  closes  on  the  north  the  Valley  of 
Sixaola Ill 

"    drawn  by  Dr.  Bravo  and  the  Commis- 
sion   V 

Loubet  Award V 

Low  Saddles II 

Main  Cordillera II 

"     points  and  line  discussed II 

III 

Manzanillo II 

IV 
IV 
IV 
IV 
IV 
I 

Middle  Creek II 


Meteorological  observations . 


IV 
IV 

VI 


Sec. 
10,  II,  15,  18, 
21,38. 

6,  Q.  IV 

4.  Q.  XIV 
26 

5,  Q.  IV 
21 

2.3.  4 
27 

In  plate  No.II 

13,  see  Plate 
No.  IV 

I,  VII 

36 

56,68 

40,  55,  59.  65. 

20,     30,     see 

Plate  II. 
12,22,34 
10,  Q.  I 
3,  Q.  XII 
I,  Q.  XV. 
I,  Q.  XVII. 
I,  Q.  XVIII 
20 

7,  12,  25,  34 

7.  Q.I 

I,  Q.  XVIII 

5 


149 

Chap. 

Panamd V 

"       Estrella  de  (Newspaper) VII 

"      proofs VIII 

"      map IX 

Pando  Cerro IX 

Party  A,  chief  of II 

Plates  (see  Index  of  Plates.) 

Peralta,  N.  M.  de VIII 

Phrases  suppressed  m  the  report II 

Pico  Blanco Ill 

IV 

Piedra  Grande Ill 

IV 
Profiles VI 

Proofs,  new VIII 

Punta  Mona I 

II 


IV 
IV 

IV 
IV 
IV 
IV 
IV 
IV 
V 

.1 
II 

.IV 

.II 


Sec. 
i8 
6 


4.  7.  23,  31 

II 

3 
28 

2,  4,  Q.  V 
14,  16,  24. 

2, 4,  Q.  n 

2,3,  see  plate 

No.  VIII. 
I 

4 

5,  7,  10,  15,  17 
20,  21,  25, 
29.  31,  36, 
38,   39 

8,  10,  Q.I 

Q.  IV,  Q. 

VII 

4,  Q.  XVIII 

XII 

VIII 

XVI 

6,  Q.  XV. 

Q.  XVII 


ILeport  of  the  Geologist. 


Rocks,  basic. 
Sanchez 


3. 

3. 

I, 

I, 

I, 

I 

I, 

31 

4.  Q.  n 
5. 56, 57 


17 


150 

Chap.  Sec. 

San  Jose VIII  32 

Shiroli II  62 

Sirukicha II  71 

IV    4.  Q.  I 

Sixaola,  branch  of  the I         12 

Sixaola II       12,  13,  20,  22, 

23,  24,  34, 
36,  39,  40, 
41,  57,  60, 
61,  64 
IV      I,  Q.  II 

Basin  of  the II       27, 43,  46 

IV      4,  Q.  IV 

Delta  of  the IV      Q.  XIII, 

XVIII 

Divergence  with  the  Gadokan I         14 

Lower I         12 

ParalleHsm  with  the  Gadokan I         14 

River '. IV      2,  Q.  XII 

IV      I,  3,  Q.  VIII 
IV      7,  Q.  I 
IV      Q.  II 
III     6,  8,  19 

Valley IV      2,3,6,Q.VIII 

III     6,8,15,16,17 
19,  26,  28 

"      waters IV      6,  Q.  XV 

Star  of  Panama  (Estrella  de) VII    6 

Substitution  of  a  line VI      20,   see  plate 


No.  VI 


Summary  of  Documents IX 

Swamp  A II       7,  18 


151 

Chap.  Sec. 

Swamp  A IV  3,  Q.  XII 

IV  I,  Q.  XVII 

V  10 

Talamanca  Valley Ill  28.  29 

Tables  of  traverse  line  to  Middle  Creek VI  30 

Temperature VI  10 

Tarire  or  Telire  Rivers IV  2,  3,  Q.  I. 

"      Upper  Telire II  57,  67,  71 

Tracing  of  the  line  that  closes  upon  the  north 

the  Valley  of  Sixaola. II  52 

III  I 

Uncertain  course IV  5,  6,  Q.  IV 

Uren  Mountain VIII  11,  12 

Valley  of  the  Sixaola II  12,  27,  37,  38, 

43,  46,  50, 
51,  52,  56, 
65 

"      "        "  III  6,8,19,26,28 

"       "     "       "  IV  2,  4,  Q.X. 

Valleys,  independent IV  1 1,  Q.  I 

Yorkin  River IV  4,  Q.  II 

Watzi  Creek II  60,  61 

IV  6,  Q.  VIII 

Watershed IX  i 

Zavala  Landing Ill  22,  23 


APPENDIX. 


APPENDIX  I. 


PHOTOGRAPHIC   VIEW   NO.    1 25. 

1 .  It  has  been  abundantly  shown  in  this  study  that  the 
theory  of  the  North  Divide  is  wholly  foreign  to  the  ques- 
tion now  in  litigation,  for  the  French  Arbitrator,  as  has 
been  repeatedly  stated,  never  referred  in  this  connection 
to  any  divide  whatever,  but  to  a  spur  or  counterfort  which 
he  supposed  existed,  closing  on  the  north  the  valley  of  the 
Tarire,  or  Sixaola  River,  and  which,  starting  from  Punta 
Mona,  ended  in  the  chain  that  separated  the  waters  of  the 
two  oceans. 

2.  It  has  also  been  established  that  if  the  Commission 
undertook  the  location  of  that  divide,  they  should  have 
treated  it  as  a  mere  detail  or  as  information  for  use  in 
illustrating  their  study,  but  under  no  circumstances  as  the 
principal  subject  of  their  inquiry;  much  less  should  the 
Commission  have  adopted  it  as  a  basis  for  its  conclusions, 
which  apparently  is  what  was  done. 

3.  Because,  even  in  the  event  that  that  divide  as  shown 
on  the  maps  and  reports  had  been  topographically  correct, 
such  conclusions  would  still  have  been  without  value  on 
account  of  the  admitted  fact  that  no  spur  or  counterfort 
whatever  exists  which  starts  from  Punta  Mona  and  continues 
uninterruptedly  to  a  terminal  in  the  cordillera  dividing  the 
waters  of  the  two  oceans  and  which,  at  the  same  time,  closes  on 
the  north  the  valley  of  the  Talire  and  Sixaola  rivers. 

4.  This  indisputable  proposition,  which  is  in  itself  alone 
enough  to  upset  the  conclusions  of  the  French  Award, 
remains  in  full  force  and  vigor,  based  as  it  is  upon  the  in- 
controvertible facts  and  arguments  presented  in  the  maps 
and  reports  of  the  Commission  and  detailed  at  great 
length  in  the  present  report. 

(iii) 


IV 

5-  Nevertheless,  the  positive  estabHshmcnt  of  this  truth 
is  so  important  to  a  just  determination  of  the  present  liti- 
gation that  no  discussion  tending  in  any  manner  to  throw 
more  light  on  the  point  can  be  looked  upon  as  a  work  of 
supererogation. 

6.  For  the  determination  of  a  real  and  material  fact 
science  offers  many  resources — and  none  more  simple, 
none  more  exact  and  eloquent  than  photography.  By 
means  of  this  process  the  real  and  material  facts  as  they 
exist  impose  themselves  upon  the  human  mind  before  all 
other  considerations ;  they  are  made  to  stand  forth  by  the 
aid  of  this  art  in  defiance  of  and  in  the  face  of  the  craftiest 
arguments  of  the  logician,  of  the  most  exact  maps  of  which 
the  hand  of  man  is  capable — subject  as  they  are  to  imper- 
fection and  error — and  even  in  the  face  of  contradiction  of 
mathematical  deductions. 

7.  Precisely  of  this  character  is  the  final  evidence  ad- 
duced as  to  the  indisputable  proposition  above  mentioned. 

8.  In  fact,  photographic  view  No.  125,  which  the  Com- 
mission presents  in  its  report  (Vol.  4,  Appendix  No.  4) 
suffices  in  itself  to  give  full  light  to  the  truth  and  could  in 
strict  justice  be  held  to  render  negligible  any  contradictory 
contentions  on  this  point. 

9.  It  is  also  true  that,  as  in  the  case  of  the  reports  of 
the  engineers  in  the  field  corps,  the  Commission  did  not 
give  to  this  document — the  most  important  of  all  that 
have  been  presented — the  merit  to  which  it  is  entitled; 
that  body  contented  itself  with  tracing  between  stations 
D616  and  Cerro  Doble,  which  appear  in  the  said  photo- 
graph, the  line  of  the  North  Divide,  which  is  drawn  on  the 
maps  as  a  continuous  ridge  between  those  stations,  leaving 
out  the  other  points  shown  in  the  photograph,  which  also 
form  part  of  the  Divide. 


10.  The  filling  in  of  this  omitsion  s  the  sob  labor  that 
remains  to  be  preformed  in  this  connection,  and  this 
Chapter  will  undertake  the  task  in  the  fewest  possible 
words. 

11.  According  to  the  Commission^  the  photographic 
camera  was  located  at  some  410  meters  towards  the  north 
of  Station  A2480  on  the  Divide,  and  at  the  respective 
azimuths  of  202°,  232°  and  252°  were  taken  the  views  num- 
bered 120,  121  and  122,  which  together  compose  the  view 
numbered  125 A,  and  later  known  as  No.  125,  and  finally 
the  view  which  is  the  subject  of  this  Chapter,  enlarged  for 
greater  clearness. 

12.  In  this  view  it  not  only  appears  that  the  Commis- 
sion marks  D616  and  Cerro  Doble  as  forming  the  North 
Divide,  but  that  from  the  same  point  are  also  taken 
peaks  66A,  65A,  58A,  43A,  54A,  and  68A  which  in  the 
same  way  pertain  to  the  Commission's  Divide,  as  may 
be  seen  on  the  maps. 

13.  These  stations  occupy  the  following  positions  on 
the  maps  of  the  Commission: 


Longitude  W . 

Location. 

Station. 

of  Greenwich. 

A^.  Latitude. 

North  Divide. .  . 

.      66A 

83°  20'  00" 

9°  40'  00" 

North  Divide. .  . 

•      65A 

83°  20'  04" 

9°  39'  50" 

North  Divide. .  . 

•      58A 

83°  20'  15" 

9°  39'  32" 

North  Divide. .  . 

•      43A 

83°  23'  50" 

9°  36'  40" 

North  Divide. .  . 

•      54A 

83°  20'  12" 

9°  39'  32" 

North  Divide. .  . 

.      68A 

83°  21'  40" 

9°  37'  30" 

North  Divide. .  . 

.      D616 
Cerro 

83°  16'  30" 

9°  40'  50" 

North  Divid  .  .  . 

.     Doble 

83°  10'  20" 

9°  38'  50" 

'Report  of  the  Commission,  Vol.  4,  Appendix  No.  4,  page  13. 


VI 


14-     These  points  having  been  thus  fixed,  it  is  enough 
to  glance  at  the  photograph  in  order  to  be  convinced : 


FIRST. 

That  the  stations  66A,  65 A  and  58A  are  found  to  be  in 
the  same  file,  or  ridge,  B. 

SECOND. 

That  in  order  to  continue  the  Divide  from  58A  on  the 
ridge  B  to  station  43A  on  the  ridge  F,  it  has  been  necessary 
to  cut  across  the  ridges  C,  D,  E,  with  their  corresponding 
deep  depressions,  to  reach  the  ridge  F  whereon  is  located 
point  43A. 

THIRD. 

That  in  order  to  go  from  43A  to  point  54A  in  the 
Divide,  it  has  been  necessary  to  descend  ridge  F  and  ascend 
ridge  G. 

FOURTH. 

That  from  ridge  G,  whereon  is  located  station  54A,  in 
order  to  reach  ridge  J,  whereon  is  located  station  68A,  it 
has  been  necessary  to  cross  ridges  F,  H,  I,  and  one  side 
of  J. 

FIFTH. 

That  from  ridge  J,  station  68 A,  it  is  necessary  to  cross 
ridges  K,  L  and  M  in  order  to  reach  station  D616,  which 
the  Commission  connects  directly  with  Cerro  Doble. 

15.  From  these  five  propositions — apparent  from  a 
simple  glance — the  irresistible  conclusion  results  that 
NO  CONTINUOUvS  SPUR  OR  COUNTERFORT  OR 
CORDILLERA  WHATSOEVER  EXISTS  THAT 
CLOSES  ON  THE  NORTH  THE  VALLEY  OF  THE 


Vll 


SIXAOLA  AND  TKLIRE  RIVERS,  but  that,  on  the 
contrary,  the  supposititious  Divide  is  itself  formed  by 
a  group  of  ridges  alternating  with  deep  ravines  that  place 
beyond  the  possibility  of  doubt  the  fact  that  there  is  no 
regular  and  continuous  spur  or  cordillera. 

1 6.  To  make  perfectly  clear  these  facts  shown  in 
photographic  view  No.  125,  attention  is  called  to  the 
accompanying  diagram .  On  it  the  ridges  are  designated  with 
the  same  letters  that  are  used  on  the  photograph,  and 
the  dotted  line  indicates  the  course  of  the  Divide. 

Ridge  A  is  the  most  distant.  Then  follows  ridge  B, 
whereon  are  located  stations  66A,  65A  and  58A;  but 
from  this  point  it  is  necessary  to  cross  the  ridge  C,  D,  E 
in  order  to  reach  43 A  on  ridge  F ;  from  that  point  on  F, 
54A  ridge  G  is  reached,  and  then,  this  time  recrossing  F, 
and  afterwards  H  and  I,  ridge  J  is  reached,  whereon  is 
located  station  68A;  but  from  this  point,  in  order  to 
reach  D616,  it  is  necessary  to  cut  across  ridges  K,  L  and  M.^ 

17.  The  Commission  assumes  that  D616  connects  with 
Cerro  Doble  along  the  ridge,  but  if  the  photograph  is 
examined,  or  a  glance  taken  at  the  above  diagram,  it 
will  be  seen  that  stations  D616  and  Cerro  Doble  are  not 
in  the  same  chain  contrary  to  the  indication  of  the  maps. 

The  merest  glance  at  the  photograph  shows  that 
station  D616  is  on  ridge  M,  which  lies  at  a  considerable 
distance  from  ridge  N,  whereon  is  located  the  Cerro  Doble 
station. 

It  will  be  seen  that  ridge  N  loses  itself  exactly  in  the 
direction  of  the  station  69 A  between  ridges  K  and  M, 
ridges  K  and  N  being  nearer  the  camera  than  ridge  M. 
The  error  in  the  maps  is  therefore  incontrovertibly 
established  by  this  photograph. 

^  It  may  be  possible  that  ridges  E  and  H,  D  and  I,  C  and  J, 
be  respectively  the  same  ridge,  but  this  does  not  change  the 
argument. 


1 8.  It  is  impossible  to  conceive  a  simpler  and  more 
evident  demonstration  of  the  fundamental  principle  which 
has  been  established,  to-wit,  the  non-existence  of  a  counter- 
fort or  Cordillera  on  the  site  fixed  by  the  Survey  Com- 
mission on  its  maps  as  the  divide  north  of  the  Sixaola 
and  Telire  Rivers. 

LUIS  MATAMOROS, 
Consulting  Engineer  of  the 

Government  of  Costa  Rica. 


Unlv.»»5^  of  <^2oml.Y  FACILITY 
SOUTHERN  REGlONA^mRARY  FA^^.,338 

from  ^teMtwMbw^^:?:?^ 


^  LIBRARY 
tamped  below. 


% 


M4. 


% 


^ 


SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  UBRAflVFAaurj 


A    001085  180    6 


F 

15U9 

B7111; 


